Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

PARAFFIN

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) Order 1979, a draft of which was laid before your House on 24 October, be annulled.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DUMBARTON DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Dumbarton district council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

GREATER GLASGOW PASSENGER TRANSPORT ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under

section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Greater Glasgow passenger transport: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

KILMARNOCK AND LOUDOUN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

SCOTS EPISCOPAL FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Scots Episcopal fund: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

STIRLING DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Stirling district council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next and to be printed. [Bill 61]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I make a special appeal for brief supplementary questions to enable me to call more hon. Members in the various groups.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South America

Mr. Neubert: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the Minister of State's recent tour of countries in South America.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Between 18 July and 2 August I visited the Falkland Islands, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. I spent a week in the Falkland Islands, taking careful note of the views of the islanders on their economic and political future. In Buenos Aires I had a general exchange of views on Anglo/Argentine relations, and we agreed to restore ambassadors. In Brazil and Venezuela I discussed our mutual economic and political interests with Ministers of the respective Governments and others.

Mr. Neubert: Does the Minister agree that we as a nation tend to neglect the immense potential of close relationships with South American countries? Having toured that area, what prospects does my hon. Friend see of extending our trade and influence there?

Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is a market of about 200 million people who are friendly and helpful towards Britain. There are great opportunities for business and every other sort of exchange. However, we must first get our production right so that we have surplus goods to sell to those important export markets.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the hon. Gentleman reverse the shabby decision of the Government to refuse admission to any more refugees from Chile and other dictatorial fascist regimes in South America? Is it the Government's policy that the victims of fascism must stay and suffer in their own countries?

Mr. Ridley: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, nationals of South American countries may still apply for settlement in England.

Mr. Kershaw: Was my hon. Friend able to form any opinion of the value attached to the BBC external services by the countries that he visited? Would it not be a good thing to retain those services?

Mr. Ridley: I invite my hon. Friend to await the statement to be made tomorrow.

Mr. Shore: I know that the Minister raises the subject of human rights through British ambassadors and whenever he meets Latin American representatives. How can it be that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is able to announce a deplorable decision to abandon the special programme for political refugees? Only a few hundred people are involved, but this is important. Are we to understand that there is no liaison between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will he pursue the matter, particularly as on the day of the announcement by the Home Secretary the Organisation of American States passed a resolution condemning Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile?

Mr. Ridley: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. The question of human rights and our reception of political refugees should be decided on an evenhanded basis throughout the world.

Namibia

Mr. Hooley: asked the Lord Privy Seal what further initiatives he proposes to take, in concert with other Western countries, to bring about the full independence of Namibia in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce): Her Majesty's Government continue to work closely with their partners in the Five for implementation of the existing United Nations plan. Our efforts at present are concentrated on securing agreement of the parties to the establishment of a demilitarised zone on the northern border of Namibia in order to enhance security during the transition to independence.

Mr. Hooley: These discussions have lasted for more than two years. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that delay is leading to increased hardship for the people of Namibia and repeated savage incursions into Angola by South African regular forces?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the problems of Namibia and will know that earlier this year there was an impasse on one problem only with regard to the United Nations' proposals, and that was the interpretation of the proposals on security. The group of five Western nations, in conjunction with the United Nations, have been working as vigorously as possible to put forward proposals for demilitarised zones, in the hope of overcoming those anxieties.

Mr. Latham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the five demarcheé powers, including the United Kingdom, do not accept the United Nations assumption that SWAPO is the sole legal Government of Namibia?

Mr. Luce: It is the Government's view that it is for the people of Namibia to determine who should be their political representatives and who should form a Government in their country? It is up to SWAPO to play its part in any elections that may be held under United Nations supervision.

Mr. Rowlands: Surely the actions of the South African Government have not contributed to solving the outstanding issues that are preventing a settlement. What representations are the Government making to the South African authorities that they should not take actions that make it difficult to achieve the settlement that we all want?

Mr. Luce: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to military action, I must tell him that we condemn any form of military activity, from any side. In the past we have made representations to all sides to exercise military restraint, and we continue to urge them to do so.

Rhodesia

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he plans to visit Rhodesia.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Brown: I hope that it will not be long before my right hon. Friend can visit Rhodesia, but what pressure are the Government putting on the Patriotic Front during the negotiations to end the civil war in Rhodesia, bearing in mind the tremendous concessions made by our Government and the Government of Bishop Muzorewa?

Sir I. Gilmour: We are not putting pressure on anybody. We are negotiating with the Patriotic Front and with Bishop Muzorewa's delegation. It is our wish that the violence should be ended as soon as possible, and at the beginning of the conference we appealed to both parties to end violence. Bishop Muzorewa's delegation agreed to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, the Patriotic Front did not. If at the conference we gain an agreement, as we hope that we shall, it will mean an end to the violence.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the British Government have not made any concession whatsoever in the entire eight weeks of negotiations? Will he also accept that the document on the constitution to which the Patriotic Front was asked to give a "Yes" or "No" answer within a few days was the same as that tabled at the beginning of the negotiations? In the discussions on the transitional stage, the Patriotic Front has been equally adamant in not negotiating on any point.

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is no more helpful than it was last week. He may know the difficulties of negotiating with two parties. It is much easier with one. In both cases our original proposals were a compromise. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the original proposals and at the final answer to the constitution, he will find that what he said is not true.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter will come up later and a number of questions will be answered together.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Mr. Goodlad: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker): My right hon. and noble Friend had arranged to meet him in London earlier this week, but Mr. Hartling was obliged to cancel his visit. Instead, I met Mr. Hartling's deputy, Mr. de Haan.

Mr. Goodlad: When my hon. Friend meets the High Commissioner, will he discuss with him the urgency of achieving permanent settlement of the Indo-Chinese refugees, which is the subject of the agreement instituted by his right hon. Friend? What steps have been taken by his Department to achieve the implementation of that agreement? What has happened, and, when the commitment is entered into, what will have been achieved?

Mr. Blaker: I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the Geneva conference in July. More than 500 of the 10,000 refugees from Hong Kong intended for resettlement in this country have arrived in the United Kingdom. We expect to receive a further 1,000 by the end of the year. Those numbers are in addition to the refugees taken from the British vessel "Sibonga" and others taken under the arrangements announced by the previous Government.

Mr. McNally: Will the Minister tell the High Commissioner that the British Government, as a contribution to alleviating suffering in Cambodia, will follow their long-standing rules on recognition? We should stop recognising Pol Pot and start co-operating with the Administration that is demonstrably in control of that country.

Mr. Blaker: That is another matter, which does not arise from the main question. We discussed it last week, and the responsibilities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees do not extend to famine relief inside Cambodia.

Moscow

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Moscow.

Mr. Blaker: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Janner: When the Minister next meets the Soviet authorities in Moscow

or elsewhere, will he suggest that, instead of requiring children to leave Moscow for the Olympic Games, they should permit their citizens to leave Moscow or anywhere else in the Soviet Union now if they wish to do so? Will he suggest, in particular, that they should release from prison and from exile people like Vladimir Slepak and Ida Nudel, who find themselves in that situation only because they want to leave the country? The authorities should stop the recent alarming trend of refusing visas to Jews and persecuting Jewish people in the Ukraine and elsewhere, who advocate the issue of such visas.

Mr. Blaker: On a number of occasions recently we have made strong representations to the Soviet authorities precisely on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is regrettably true that the number of refusals to, for example, Jewish people who wish to leave the Soviet Union has increased. However, it is a welcome development that the number of applications that have been granted has also increased. We shall continue to maintain pressure on that issue.

Mr. Russell Johnston: If and when the Minister meets Mr. Brezhnev, will he indicate the Government's willingness to respond positively to the detente proposals made in East Berlin? Will he also ask him directly, if he is serious, why it is that, despite the USSR's massive military predominance and economic problems, that country continues to spend 13 per cent, of its gross national product on arms?

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on the percentage of GNP that the Soviet Union spends on arms, and that must be a cause for concern. Mr. Brezhnev's recent announcement that the Soviet Union would withdraw a number of troops and tanks from Eastern Europe was a welcome development. I hope that it will be followed by Soviet moves to get agreement at the MBFR conference. Mr. Brezhnev's offer to reduce long-term tactical forces in Europe is also welcome, but we must recognise that his statistics conceal the fact that there has been a great deal of modernisation of Soviet tactical nuclear forces in Europe. That is why the British Government propose to proceed with


Western plans to modernise our tactical nuclear forces.

Mr. Farr: Should my hon. Friend find it possible to go to Russia, will he make it clear that any attempt by the Russian authorities to dictate the terms on which we participate in the Olympics will be deeply resented in this country?

Mr. Blaker: Any attempt by the Soviet authorities to dictate to us in that regard would, I believe, be out of order under the charter of the International Olympic Committee. It is for the IOC to decide whether countries meet the requirements of that charter.

The following question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: to ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about relations with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is not present, I may have misled the House when I said that questions on Rhodesia would come up a little later. I therefore propose to exercise my discretion and allow further supplementary questions to question No. 9.

Helsinki Agreement

Mr. Sproat: asked the Lord Privy Seal what latest progress has been made in preparation for the Madrid review conference.

Mr. Blaker: We are continuing our regular consultations with our partners in the Nine and with other Western countries in NATO and in the Council of Europe. We have already had a number of bilateral contacts with other signatories of the Final Act, including countries of Eastern Europe, and these contacts will continue between now and the Madrid meeting.

Mr. Sproat: Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity at the forthcoming Madrid conference, as well as now, to condemn in the strongest terms the action of the Czech authorities in sentencing six of their citizens to severe terms of imprisonment for doing no more than they are allowed to do under the Helsinki Agreement? What action has been taken by my hon. Friend's Department to condemn

the Czechs for this, and how does he intend to ensure at Madrid that these breaches of the Helsinki Agreement are publicly and firmly dealt with?

Mr. Blaker: We have taken a number of steps to make clear to the Czechoslovak authorities our revulsion at the action that they have taken against supporters of the Charter 77 movement and to show that we deplore the sentences that were passed on six members of that movement on 23 October. My right hon. Friend made this perfectly clear to the visiting Czech Energy Minister when he saw him last week. On another occasion we made our views perfectly clear to the Czech authorities bilaterally. The Government of the Republic of Ireland, acting on behalf of the Nine European Community countries, have also issued a statement expressing the deep concern of all the member States about the Czechoslovak action.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that what has happened in Czechoslovakia should be condemned, as it has indeed been condemned by the National Executive of the Labour Party? Is he aware that it seems like hypocrisy for some Tories to condemn what has happened in Czechoslovakia, while condoning tyrannies in South Africa, Chile and a number of other places?

Mr. Blaker: As has been said, we value human rights in all parts of the world. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that both sides of the House feel quite strongly that this is hardly the time for us to reduce the BBC's overseas service? If, later this week, an announcement is to be made that there will be a compromise reduction, that will not give any encouragement to those of us who feel strongly about the issue. If substantial cuts need to be made in the foreign service, my hon. Friend might direct his attention to the triplication of functions that goes on in our Embassy in Washington between the three Armed Services.

Mr. Blaker: I think that my hon. Friend has gone a certain distance from the original question. However, as he said, there will soon be an announcement about the BBC's external service.

Mr. Shore: We entirely share the view expressed from the Conservative Back Benches in relation to the BBC's external service, and we also share the Minister's view in condemning the recent and wholly unjustified trials in Prague. Will he particularly press on the Czech authorities the fact that their exclusion of legal and other observers from the West at those trials is particularly resented?

Mr. Blaker: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our embassy attempted to send an observer to the trial, but he was excluded. That is one serious aspect. The other serious aspect is that the accused were being tried for exercising their rights under the Helsinki Agreement—an agreement into which their Government freely entered.

Rhodesia

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Lord Privy Seal what are the current arrangements governing trade with Rhodesia.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Rhodesia.

Sir Ian Gilmour: In view of what you said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I answer this question together with question Nos. 11, 13 and 14.
For the time being, sanctions remain in force. But, as I told the House on 24 October, it is our objective to get rid of sanctions as soon as possible. I gave a full account of the progress of the constitutional conference at Lancaster House to this House on 24 October. I am pleased to announce that Bishop Muzorewa announced on 27 October his acceptance of the British proposals for the pre-independence period. The discussions on the interim period are continuing, and it is our hope that the Patriotic Front will also agree to our proposals in the near future.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Miller: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the date when sanctions come to an end under the present order? Can he further tell us when United Nations sanctions will end without renewal, and what steps will be necessary to amend that should, in his judgment, conditions be such that British sanctions could be lifted?

Sir I. Gilmour: The sanctions under section 2 of the 1965 Act would come to an end on 15 November if they were not renewed. Other sanctions that do not depend upon section 2 would continue unless they were brought to an end. The United Nations sanctions continue, but, since we took the matter to the United Nations, we presume that when we lift sanctions the United Nations will follow.

Mr. Townsend: Since the Government do not wish the United Nations to send observers to the elections, and as we shall need the support of the United Nations Security Council to lift mandatory sanctions and obtain international recognition of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, what special arrangements are the Government making to keep the Secretary-General of the United Nations informed of developments during those elections?

Sir I. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary-General has been over here. We have our representatives in the United Nations, and many other countries are also interested in this matter. My hon. Friend can take it that the United Nations will remain fully informed of what is going on.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proposals, if any, the Government have put forward for the control of the guerrilla forces belonging to the Patriotic Front during the period following a settlement, when Zimbabwe would be under the direct rule of the British Government?

Sir I. Gilmour: As my hon. Friend knows, we are at present discussing the interim arrangements. Once we reach agreement on those, we shall discuss the ceasefire arrangements next week. However, it is important to proceed step by


step, and we have not yet come to the ceasefire period.

Mr. Bennett: Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the statutory instrument under which he gave immunity to the rebels from Rhodesia to attend the conference ran out last week and that he has now had to lay a further order? What procedures will he adopt to ensure that the House has the opportunity to scrutinise that order, or does he intend to cheat the House, as his officials suggested yesterday to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Sir I. Gilmour: Our information is that the order did not run out last week. It is a matter of ambiguity whether it runs out this week. It is all a question whether when the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords is sitting that counts as a sitting day of Parliament. That is a matter upon which I would hesitate to pronounce. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to cheat the House.

Mr. Shore: If the elections are to be tree and fair, which I believe is the wish of everyone involved in this dispute, and if the ballot is to replace the bullet, does the Minister agree that it is essential that the armed forces on both sides are not exercising, or seen to be exercising, a coercive presence in Zimbabwe during the election period? Does he also agree that it is essential that there should be adequate time for the preparations for the election? If that is so, will he consider again the two-month period, which I believe, as do most people who have looked at this seriously, is too short a time for sensible and serious political organisation, particularly of those who have been excluded by exile from Zimbabwe politics for a number of years?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that Commonwealth observers could do much more to help build up confidence in the validity and impartiality of the election process if they were given a more serious job to do than simply witnessing the ballot box operation? In these closing stages of the negotiations, will the Minister please show some flexibility instead of being so stiff-necked as he appears to be now?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's allegation that we

have been stiff-necked. Far from it. It is our intention that, provided there is a ceasefire, law and order should be preserved by the police acting under the British Government and with British police advisers.
On the question of the length of the election campaign, everyone has his own views. We believe that the parties must have sufficient time to state their case to the electorate. But, as everyone in the House knows, electioneering is a throughly divisive activity which will put the ceasefire under strain. We think that a period of two months from the time the ceasefire takes effect is ample time for the parties to put their case to the electorate.
The question of Commonwealth observers will come up again next week. They have an important part to play, but I do not want to add anything further at this stage.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Council of Ministers

Mr. Spearing: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects reports to be made concerning meetings of the EEC Council of Ministers held since 27 July; and if he will report on the proceedings of the Council held on 18 September.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Reports have been made to the House on all Council meetings held during the parliamentary recess. As regards the Council held on the 18 September, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 22 October.
I also attended a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on the 29 and 30 October at which our discussions included steel aids, the GATT multilateral trade negotiations, imports of United States synthetic fibres and aid to Cambodia. We also gave preliminary consideration to subjects which might be discussed at the European Council.
I am circulating a more detailed account in the Official Report.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his reply. Will he confirm that the reports that he mentioned are, in fact, written replies to questions? When does


he expect to revert to the policy of making oral statements to the House after meetings of the Council of Ministers? In respect of the Foreign Ministers' Council held on 18 September, can he tell us anything about future co-ordination of overseas aid policy? Following last night's decision, does he agree that harmonisation of our policy with that of Germany, for example, could provide problems, because it would mean a major change of policy?

Sir I. Gilmour: Of course we shall always report to the House about these Council meetings. Whether it is an oral or written statement depends on the importance of the business to be transacted and on the availability of parliamentary time. I take note of the point which the hon. Member made in the second part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Jim Spicer: When my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues will he undertake to discuss with them serious problems facing the people of Zambia and Zaire in view of the breakdown of transportation both to the east and to the west, leaving them totally dependent upon the route to the south? This is an important matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give it some consideration.

Sir I. Gilmour: It is an important matter, but I am not sure that it relates to this question.

Mr. Ford: Will the right hon. Member give an undertaking, on behalf of the Government, that the Government representative at the Council of Ministers next week will, in the national interest, block any order that seeks to extend the outward processing or free circulation of wool textiles within the EEC?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that I could give an undertaking in quite those terms. I shall consider the matter and write to the hon. Member about it.

Following is the information:
The United Kingdom was represented at the Foreign Affairs Council on 29 and 30 October by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and myself. My hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, attended the fifth EEC/Cyprus Association Council, which was held at the end of the Foreign Affairs Council.

There was a preliminary discussion of items which might be discussed at the European Council. This question will he discussed further at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 20 November.
Following debate in the House on 23 October, we lifted our reserve on the draft decision on steel aids. The decision is now subject only to a reserve by one member State. It hopes to resolve its difficulties before the Foreign Affairs Council next month.
The Council agreed in principle to provide about £16 million worth of new aid for famine relief in Cambodia, in addition to the £3.2 million worth already being provided by the Community.
Ministrs had before them a report by the Commission on the GATT multilateral trade negotiations; they noted that the final package of the negotiations constituted a balanced result, subject to a uniformly correct application by the principal partners. The Council asked officials to pursue the examination of the internal implementing provisions, as well as the legal problems linked with formal conclusion.
A number of member States, including the United Kingdom, drew attention to the urgency of the problem being caused to European producers by United States synthetic textile exports which benefit from artificially low feedstock prices. The Commission promised to report on further contacts with the United States Administration and to make recommendations for any further action at the November Council.
The Council approved the terms of a memorandum of understanding negotiated with Malta earlier in the year about restraint of Maltese textile exports to the Community.
Agreement was reached in principle on a mandate for negotiation with Portugal on the revision of the EEC/Portugal trade agreement requested by the Portuguese. One member State was unable to agree at the Council but will, I hope, lift its reserve shortly. Particular consideration was given to Portugal's request to maintain restrictions on vehicle imports, and to proposed concessions on agricultural and paper products.
Ministers discussed the state of relations with Turkey in the light of the visit by the President of the Council, Mr. O'Kennedy, and Commissioner Haferkamp to Ankara in September.
Approval was given to a statement of the Community's position on the negotiations for the next stage of the EEC/Cyprus Association Agreement to begin in January 1980. This was later communicated to the Cypriots at an Association Council held after the Foreign Affairs Council.
A negotiating mandate for the Commission to open talks with the Association of South East Asian Nations—(ASEAN)—on a co-operation agreement was approved.
There was discussion on an outstanding problem concerning the draft regulation about


aid to the non-associated countries, but no agreement was reached.
The Council gave its approval to signature of the new EEC/ACP convention which took place in Lomé this morning.

Mr. Hicks: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Evans: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet his European Common Market colleagues.

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the Foreign Ministers of the European Common Market.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I attended a meeting of the Council in Luxembourg on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
I expect to be in the Far East when the Foreign Affairs Council next meets on the 20 and 27 November, and I shall therefore not meet my colleagues until 18 December.

Mr. Hicks: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House and the country generally that in any negotiations that take place on the future level of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget he will not agree to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, to the export of sheepmeat to France or to our oil supplies in the North Sea being taken as bargaining factors?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree that all these matters are extremely important in themselves. The fisheries problem is self-contained, as is the budget problem, and each should be settled on its merits. The same applies to the other matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. There is no common link.

Mr. Evans: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his EEC colleagues will he impress upon them that our membership of the Common Market is increasing in unpopularity among the British people? Will he make it clear to his colleagues that unless the EEC agrees to a substantial reduction in our budget contribution at the Council meeting in Dublin the British people will expect the Prime Minister to take unilateral action to reduce our contribution?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree with the bit in the middle of the hon. Member's question, but I do not agree with either the beginning or the end of it. I agree with his implications that our budget contribution is far too high, and we aim to see that it is reduced so that we are in broad balance as a result of decisions which the European Council is committed to taking in Dublin.

Mr. Stoddart: Bearing in mind the belligerent attitude of the Prime Minister in response to the proposals by the Russians for troop reductions in Germany, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that no talks are taking place at informal meetings of Foreign Ministers of the EEC on the harmonisation of defence arrangements within the EEC, rather than through NATO?

Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Member well knows, the EEC is not concerned with defence, so that does not come into it. He is right to imply that these matters come under NATO, and they will continue to do so.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing understanding among other member States of Britain's problem in relation to our excessive budget contribution? However, is he aware that this excessive contribution arose exclusively from the negligence and complacency of the previous Government? Does he agree that this gives us the opportunity, in contrast to the recent surge of expressions of nationalistic opinion in other States, to take the Community forward once this crisis is resolved? One of the best things to do would be to reduce agricultural prices by 5 per cent. in the next price review.

Sir I. Gilmour: Certainly we wish to stop agricultural prices increasing. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a growth in the understanding by our partners of our budgetary problem, but there is room for yet more growth in that understanding.

Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that it is really no good roaring like a lion one day and bleating like a lamb the next over this matter of the budget and the Dublin summit? This is what we have had not only from Foreign Office Ministers but from the Prime Minister herself. If the budget contribution is


intolerable, burdensome and unfair to this country, will the Lord Privy Seal resolve to stop these excessive payments? Is he aware that any action that the Government wish to take to bring that about will have the full support of the Opposition?

Sir I. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be reverting to the sort of behaviour that he displayed when he was in government. To give them their due, the Labour Government did nothing illegal in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman should know that to issue threats, and so on, while negotiating is absurd. The sort of approach that he is advocating yielded no dividends when the Labour Government were in power. We shall proceed in a different way.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Turning from the political issue, when my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues will he bear in mind the civilising and humane aspect of the EEC and instruct and consult his colleagues so that proper relief is given by Europe to the tragic people of Cambodia?

Sir I. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Cambodia was discussed yesterday at the Council of Foreign Ministers. He will also be aware that this country has a far better bilateral record than any of our Community partners. Subject to certain budgetary allocations, agreement was reached yesterday to increase aid to Cambodia.

Mr. Jay: Is the Minister aware that this country's trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC Six is running at an annual rate of £3,700 million? That is additional to both the budget burden and the CAP contribution. What will the Government do to reduce the intolerable strain on our resources?

Sir I. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been balance of payments difficulties for a number of years. The way to gauge our trade performance with the EEC is to compare the export-import ratio of our bilateral trade with our partners. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware—although most of the House will not—that this was 83 per cent. in 1972, 87 per cent. in 1977, 86 per cent. last year and 83 per cent. in the first nine months of 1979. As the right

hon. Gentleman suggests, an improvement in that performance is urgently needed. It is up to industry to take better advantages of the opportunities that are offered by the Community.

Mr. Leighton: asked the Lord Privy Seal when his right hon. and noble Friend will next meet his European Economic Community colleagues.

Sir Ian Gilmour: On 20 November at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels.

Mr. Leighton: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice the article in the London Book Review of 25 October by the distinguished Cambridge economist Wynne Godley, who said that, in addition to the net transfer into the budget and the higher cost of food prices, what he called a careful estimate of our balance of trade in manufactures in 1977 showed that we were £4,500 million worse off than if we had not joined the Community? He went in to say that our real national income could have been 10 per cent. higher had we not joined, and that inflation would have been lower. In view of all that, have the Government any official estimate of the cost to our balance of payments and standard of living of our membership of the EEC?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am afraid that I did not see that article, nor am I familiar with the publication. Therefore, I am unable to answer the question. Mr. Wynne Godley is a distinguished economist. However, his views on the EEC do not necessarily attract general agreement.

Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend draw upon his experiences of meetings of the Council of Ministers and tell the House whether he can quote any decision that has been made at those meetings in the last few months that has been of particular interest to this country?

Sir I. Gilmour: Certainly—the decision yesterday on steel aids, our agreement with the ASEAN, and so on. I do not have them all at my fingertips, but no doubt there are many.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the price of exporting British lamb to France will be the agreement to the existing sheepmeat regime? If so, how will he


explain that to the housewife when prices rise?

Sir I. Gilmour: As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to make a statement on the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, which took place yesterday and the day before. However, there is no connection between the two matters to which she referred.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet other EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Straw: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet his EEC counterparts.

Mr. Knox: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he will next meet his European Economic Community counterparts.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects next to meet the Foreign Ministers of other member States in the European Community.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks).

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that the French ban on British lamb is helping to increase supplies for the British market and keeping prices lower than they otherwise would be? Would it not be a good idea to congratulate the French Government on protecting the British housewife much better than the Tory Government are doing and looking after the housewife's purse, while wrecking the Common Market at the same time?

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman holds different views from most of us on the rule of law. We deplore the fact that the French Government have not recognised and obeyed the ruling of the

European Court. We hope that they will not delay long in so doing.

Mr. Straw: As the Prime Minister said yesterday that she and the Government were going for a broad balance between our contributions and the benefits that we receive from the EEC, and as, at the moment, we are out of balance by £1,000 million, will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the target in these negotiations is a reduction in our contribution by £1,000 million? That would bring us back to a position of broad balance. If we fail to achieve that, will it not be a failure by the Government?

Sir I. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman has been selective in his quotation. The Prime Minister also said that she believed that it would be folly to put any figure on the amount. I confirm that she said that we are seeking a broad balance.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Council of Ministers should concentrate its discussions on new initiatives and developments in Community activities from which Britain might gain certain financial advantages to balance against our contribution to the CAP?

Sir I. Gilmour: We shall favour anything that is likely to help us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the budget imbalance is so great that there is no possibility of removing it by introducing new projects of the kind that he has mentioned.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the considerable dismay in sheepfarming areas at the decision of the French Government to ignore the Court's decision on the import of sheepmeat into their country? In view of the Minister's remarks that this decision will not be used as a bargaining counter in relation to other decisions, will he say what sanctions the Government intend to impose in view of the unilateral French decision?

Sir I. Gilmour: I agree entirely with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. This is not simply an Anglo-French quarrel. It is a quarrel between France and the rest of the Community on a question of law. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly be making a statement on the matter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my right hon Friend find it curious that most of the objections to events in Europe by the Opposition are about the terms that were obtained by the Labour Government after the renegotiation? However, will he be fairer to the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)? He was a member of the Cabinet which agreed to those terms, but he honourably opposed them throughout.

Sir I. Gilmour: My hon. Friend is so double-edged that I am still trying to catch up with him. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take my hon. Friend's compliment in the spirit in which it was meant.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the United Kingdom will support the initiatives that are being discussed at the Council of Ministers to try to break the deadlock on Cyprus? Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will submit further proposals along the lines of the policy that has already been enunciated?

Sir I. Gilmour: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is about to visit Cyprus. The Council of Ministers has been discussing its agreement with Cyprus on economic matters and Cyprus's association with the Community, rather than the inter-communal problem in Cyprus. That matter is not being discussed by the Council of Ministers, but I agree that it is important. I had a meeting with the Cyprus Foreign Minister yesterday.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Lord Privy Seal will know that the European Parliament is establishing a special committee to consider a common electoral system. What preparations does he wish to ask the Council of Ministers to set in train in this regard?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that at this stage we have any proposal in mind. In the first place, these matters should be discussed by the Parliament. That is the right way round.

Mr. Marlow: The British taxpayer is currently spending £1,000 million a year on subsidising social problems, largely in agriculture, in richer nations within Europe. This costs the average family of four in this country £1·50 a week. France, which makes up 20 per cent. of

the gross national product of the Community, puts 16 per cent. into the Community budget and takes 24 per cent. out of it. If my right hon. Friend, at Dublin, does not get significant advantages from the Council, will we deliver an ultimatum to Europe to make sure that we get a fair deal?

Sir I. Gilmour: I have already said that I do not think threats are the best way of proceeding in this matter. I am thoroughly opposed to ultimatums, or ultimata. We have made clear, the Prime Minister above all, that the French position, as my hon. Friend says, is thoroughly inequitable. The matter was raised at Strasbourg. The Commission has produced papers showing that our figures are right. We look for a solution at the Dublin meeting.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Aid Programme

Mr. Deakins: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now specify details of the £50 million cut in the overseas aid programme.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten): The £50 million reduction in this year's programme as planned by the previous Administration has meant both deferment and some curtailment of that expenditure. In reshaping the programme we have had to take account in particular of the heavy expenditure commitments that we inherited for 1979–80. Where necessary, discussions have taken place with recipients about revised levels or rephasing of expenditure, but it is not the custom, as the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) will know, to provide advance details about individual programmes.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not deplorable that Britain, one of the world's richest countries, should seek to resolve its economic problems by measures which, at least in part, will adversely affect the interests of some of the poorest countries in the world?

Mr. Marten: No Sir. I would not agree. If the hon. Member reads the latest development report of the World Bank he will see that the point is made


that the industrialised Western countries must ensure that their own economies are strong.

Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind the vast amount of development aid that has gone from this country to most of the front-line States in Central and Southern Africa over the past 15 years, when Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has not been in a position to benefit, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are prepared to start a programme of substantial aid to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as soon as there is a return to legality?

Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir. That is so. But we must await the establishment of the legal Government in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Only when that is established can we work out precisely what is needed.

India

Mr. Maxton: asked the Lord Privy Seal what cuts he proposes in the aid programme to India.

Mr. Neil Marten: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern among hon. Members about his failure to deny in the debate last night the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) that there would be a 40 per cent. cut in aid to India this year? Is he now prepared to make that denial? If not, is he aware that a 40 per cent. cut would create considerable economic difficulties in India, make the suffering among millions in India worse than it is already and create economic problems within our own country? Only by developing industry in India and other developing countries can we solve our own economic problems.

Mr. Marten: I am afraid that I do not have the precise percentage, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Discussions have taken place with the Indian Government, who understand the reasons for the cuts and have taken them with good grace.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In allocating the cuts in aid to India, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the recent report

of the Select Committee on Overseas Development, which draws attention to the need to avoid concentrating our aid on capital goods? Will he bear in mind also the importance to local employment in India of aid being dispersed to smaller rural projects?

Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir.

Dame Judith Hart: It is with great regret that one hears final confirmation this afternoon of the cut in the aid programme to India. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman think this is compatible with the maintenance by the Government of an aid strategy to the poorest countries? Or is he proposing a new and very different strategy?

Mr. Marten: As the right hon. Lady knows, there is a review of aid going on. I should prefer to await the outcome of that review, which is an internal one within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, before making any comments about any shift in the pattern of aid.

Bangladesh

Mr. Michael Martin: asked the Lord Privy Seal what cuts he proposes in the aid programme to Bangladesh.

Mr. Neil Marten: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).

Mr. Michael Martin: Is the Minister aware that all the major Christian denominations in Scotland are compiling a petition urging the Government to raise their overseas aid figure to 0·7 per cent. of the gross national product to help such countries as Bangladesh? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will seriously consider the petition when he is presented with it?

Mr. Neil Marten: Yes, Sir.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to reduce aid to countries that are spending excessive amounts on nuclear development especially those that are spending this money to get nuclear power?

Mr. Neil Marten: I think that that is one of the factors that should be taken into account.

Aid Programme

Dame Judith Hart: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the effect of cuts in the aid programme on the strategy of the White Paper "More Aid to the Poorest".

Mr. Neil Marten: As the right hon. Lady knows, current disbursements flow from commitments entered into earlier. Our immediate concern has been to adjust disbursements to keep them within the planned aid programme. We are currently reviewing the future shape of the programme.

Dame Judith Hart: The whole issue is becoming extremely serious. We need a much franker statement from the Government than we heard last night or that we seem likely to be given in the future. When does the hon. Gentleman propose to give us a clear statement of the changes in aid strategy that are now taking place as a result of the pretty savage cuts in the aid programme, which replace a real increase of 6 per cent. with a real decrease of 5 per cent?

Mr. Marten: While not entirely agreeing witht those figures, I think that it would be far better if there are any changes, to make them after we have considered the review that is taking place.

Mr. Cormack: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reprove the printer of the Order Paper, on which the name of the questioner was misprinted? May I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that aid to Cambodia will be maintained during the present crisis?

Mr. Marten: Yes, Sir. The aid will be maintained.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister assure the House that he will not include in his cuts the programme for matching grants to desperately poor villages, such as those in Gujerat about which I spoke to him concerning the request of the Chief Minister? The aid programme is a means of bringing help to those who need it most.

Mr. Marten: I cannot give an assurance about all matching grants. But they will be looked at most carefully.

Mr. W. Benyon: Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that in future aid will be given to our friends and not to our enemies?

Mr. Marten: First, when there is a deserving case we shall give aid to our friends. We shall obviously consider the second category mentioned.

Miss Boothroyd: Under what criteria does the Minister operate in deciding which projects are being abandoned before he discusses them with the possible recipient countries?

Mr. Marten: They are not decided beforehand. They are thought about, and discussions then take place.

Development Education

Mr. McElhone: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his intensions concerning the programme for development education.

Mr. Neil Marten: On 9 October I announced that the official funding by the overseas development administration of development education activities in Britain was to be progressively reduced. As a consequence the advisory committee on development education is to be disbanded.

Mr. McElhone: Is not that a deplorable decision by the Minister, when his predecessor set up a good programme of development education? Is it not also deplorable, in international terms, for Germany, Sweden and many other countries to spend 10 times what we spend? The consciousness and concern of the British people will suffer. Indeed, the Third world will also suffer.

Mr. Marten: One considers all these issues as a matter of priority. The plan to spend about £9 million over the next few years must be matched against priorities such as aid to Dominica and Kampuchea. If we had not had to cut the planned programme of the Labour Party because of the economic mess, this situation would not have arisen.

PRISON SERVICE INQUIRY (REPORT)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement.
The report of the committee of inquiry into the United Kingdom prison services under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice May has been published today. First, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I, thank Mr. Justice May and his committee for their remarkable efforts in producing so comprehensive a report in the space of only 10 months.
The May committee was established because, as I know my predecessor the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will confirm, all is not well with our prison systems. But, as the committee itself has emphasised, that does not mean that nothing is right. I endorse entirely the committee's view that we have been fortunate indeed in the men and women who staff our prison services. This does not simply mean the prison officers and governors—it includes all of the staff of individual establishments, regional offices and headquarters. A particular tribute is due to the staff of the Northern Ireland prison service, who have had to work under conditions of which the House will be only too aware.
The report draws attention to some fundamental problems. The rise in the prison population and the consequent overcrowding in many prisons is perhaps the most obvious. The committee recommends that we should pursue alternatives to imprisonment wherever possible but concludes that there are no acceptable developments which will absolve us from the need to support for the foreseeable future a substantial prison population. Moreover, there are other major problems such as the decay of many of the buildings, the poor physical conditions and sanitary arrangements, the rise in the number of criminally sophisticated and violent offenders and the consequent increased problems of control.
We welcome the report's insistence on the constructive aspects of imprisonment and its concept of "positive custody" with its emphasis on work, education and

openness of approach. For non-violent offenders we welcome the committee's advocacy of shorter sentences.
The committee saw one of the principal requirements for the future as being the improvement of morale and efficiency in the prison service. To this end, it has made a number of far-reaching recommendations, confined to England and Wales, on the management and organisation of the prison department. I welcome the objectives that the committee has set and its emphasis on the standing and sense of identity of the prison service and shall have them firmly in mind in considering this important group of recommendations.
The committee makes a number of recommendations on pay and allowances, some for implementation straight away, and some for further consideration in conjunction with the unions concerned. It recommends that the pay of prison officers should continue to be linked with Civil Service rates under the formula which has been in operation since 1958 in accordance with the recommendations of the Wynn-Parry committee. In recognition of the increased demands of the prison officers' job since the review by the Wynn-Parry committee, the May committee recommends new pay scales involving an increment of about 6 per cent. on the third stage of the pay increase agreed this year under the existing formula. The committee also recommends new pay scales for prison governors, again involving an increase in the third stage of the Civil Service pay settlement, and that all the new rates should date for pension purposes from 1 April 1979.
The committee also considered a number of claims by the Prison Officers' Association for the payment of what are known as "continuous duty credits", and it recommends the acceptance of three of these claims from varying dates. In addition, the committee made recommendations relating to the Northern Ireland prison service. The Government for their part accept and are prepared to implement all these recommendations on pay and allowances.
The committee stressed the need for greater efficiency in the use of manpower and for reductions in the high level of overtime. We share the committee's


view. We shall need to examine carefully in consultation with the staff associations ways in which we can achieve these important objectives and deal with the recommendations on such matters as industrial relations, the role and training of staff, recruitment and conditions of service. The committee has also recommended a significant extension of the prison building programme as well as improvements in working conditions and facilities for staff. We shall need to study these recommendations carefully, taking account of the nation's total resources and the many claims upon them and our commitment to support and improve the prison system.
The May report presents all of us who are involved in our prisons with an opportunity and a challenge—an opportunity to tackle the problems of our prison system and a challenge to build on what has already been achieved. As the committee has said, those who would turn their backs on our prisons turn their backs on society and its values.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that when I set up the inquiry I expected it to report earlier this year? However, an earlier report would not have been nearly as valuable as this report. It is extremely valuable—and will be valuable in the future to all those who are considering changes in the prison service. I echo the right hon. Gentleman's words of congratulation to Mr. Justice May and his colleagues and the secretariat.
Is the Minister aware that the terms of reference were carefully drawn up to raise for consideration important issues that were happening; that there was a breakdown and—I put it bluntly—anarchy in the prisons; that prisoners were being locked up 23 hours a day; and that in some prisons the regime was not being determined by the governors? The report says that all is not well. That covers a great deal.
I agree that we are fortunate in the men and women who staff this service as there are problems, given the large number of people who are in prison these days. I echo the Minister's words of praise for the Northern Ireland prison service, which has problems far greater than those on this side of the water.
This is not the occasion for raising all the issues. However, I should like to raise a number of them—first, the continuous duty credits, which was the reason for some of the problems at the end of last year. The report gives an objective view of CDCs which was specifically requested. It deals with their history. It sets them out with a clarity which many people—who, when they first looked at them, were not involved in them from day to day—will find valuable. I hope that all those involved with the prisons today will accept the report. I regard it as a good attempt to unravel something that has grown up over the years.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hope, too, is that prison officers will accept what he has said about pay in general, and that they will build on the recommendation on pay from 1 January? I am glad to see the recognition that is given to governors.
Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed certain recommendations, which I regard as some of the most important, under the heading of industrial relations? The first is that the action taken by prison officers has
on occasions, run counter to the stated position of the Prison Officers' Association on the limits of acceptable action.
The second is that
staff and management at all levels must share some degree of responsibility
for that which has gone on, and that the staff must acknowledge that there are certain issues that can never be settled locally.
The recommendation that I wish to raise especially is that the
Home Office and the Civil Service Department should give consideration to a return to the situation in which matters of pay and conditions of service are negotiated directly between the Home Office and the POA.
There is no doubt that if there are two Departments trying to negotiate on pay one will get it wrong. The responsible Department is the Home Office.
There is much to debate in future. I am glad that the report recognises that it is the Home Office that is in charge. I have noticed that there is praise for accommodation in Northern Ireland. The reason for accommodation in Northern Ireland being better is that special money was given to me, as Secretary of State for


Northern Ireland, to ensure that an improvement took place. I know that it is easy to make these statements when in opposition, but last year I obtained an extra £20 million to deal with minor works in prisons.
We had all better accept that much to which the report draws attention will not be put right without public expenditure. I hope that we all agree that something must be done. If not, we shall be faced with industrial action and riots in prisons that none of us wishes to see.
The report also refers to a matter that is of considerable interest to some of my hon. Friends, namely, mentally disordered patients. There are some mentally disordered offenders in gaol. The report states that the Department of Health and Social Security
should take urgent steps to ensure that the NHS lives up to its proper responsibilities in respect of them.
A beginning has been made. All that I am asking for is an assurance that the DHSS will carry out what it told me it was going to do at the end of last year.
This is an excellent report.

Mr. Joseph Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had a couple of questions but I wish to pursue my point of order. We have before us an extremely lengthy report. It has been in our hands since 2.30 p.m. When the Secretary of State for the Home Department replies to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), will he say whether we are to have an opportunity to debate the report?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what I call very naughty. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) knows that that was not a point of order. He should seek to put a question to the Secretary of State. I deal only with points of order.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must not be an accomplice in naughtiness, Mr. Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) knows the answer that he would have received if I had been naughty enough to give it.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). The House and the country should be grateful to him for initiating the report and ensuring

that we had such a comprehensive report on our prison service. I think that he was right to do so. I am pleased that the report has emerged as it has.
I am also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the need for everyone in the prison service to accept the views expressed in the report on continuous duty credits and on pay and allowances. I am grateful to him for a helpful comment that I hope will be followed up.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to industrial relations and the need for the Home Office especially to deal with pay in direct negotiations. That is a part of the discussions that we shall have to have with the staff associations, with the Prison Officers' Association and with the governors on the future conduct of industrial relations issues.
Paragraph 10.22 states:
it is up to staff, while remaining rightly concerned with their conditions of employment and any legitimate grievances that arise, to recognise (as they have not always done in the past) that there are limitations on management's ability to make concessions in certain major areas, and that there is a need to make full use of negotiating channels before resorting to industrial action. This, we believe, is first and foremost in the interests of prison officers themselves.
I agree that the issue of mentally disordered offenders is extremely important. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I fully accept what he has said and we shall seek to implement his remarks.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House for short questions because there is another statement to follow. I want to try to be fair to the whole House. The main business of the day has aroused considerable interest in the House.

Mr. Stephen Ross: First, may I convey to the right hon. Gentleman my own and my colleagues' tribute to the May committee and to the prison service? The report came late in the day. I cannot accept the remarks of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on that score. I regret that there is no recommendation to change the present dispersal policy as outlined by the Mountbatten report in 1966. I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to consider the


arguments for such a change, especially those emanating from Southampton university.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the changes in his own Department in the administration of the prison department, as outlined in the report, will lead to changes and effective decisions to overcome the present blockage?
Before the right hon. Gentleman phases out the inconvenience of the locality allowance, which is a bone of contention in my constituency, I ask for talks with the Prison Officers' Association on the Isle of Wight and elsewhere.

Mr. Whitelaw: Any discussions on any future allowances and the way in which we deal with them will be conducted through the Prison Officers' Association. The Government will stand by, especially at a time of difficulty with resources, the building programme that is planned. That is important. It must be accepted, in view of neglect over many generations, that the plan is not adequate for the problems that are involved. However, we shall certainly stand by the planned programme.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one who gave evidence to the May committee, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining—it cannot have been easy—the necessary funds to meet most if not all of the recommendations on pay and allowances? I join the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in hoping that that will avert the ugly American-style situation that could arise in our prisons.
I ask my right hon. Friend two questions. First, will he now offer to the prison officers similar no-strike arrangements to those that obtain with the police and receive their comments? Secondly, is he satisfied that there is a good enough career structure for those who go into the service and want to achieve rapid promotion?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the Government's acceptance of the recommendations on pay and allowances. The May committee has studied these matters carefully and I attach the highest importance to the fact that we have been able to accept its advice.
My hon. Friend asked about no-strike arrangements. I am prepared to discuss with the Prison Officers' Association and all those concerned any matter concerning industrial relations as set out in the report. I should like to consider carefully the career structure. I do not wish fully to commit myself to saying that it is presently satisfactory.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the report is extremely welcome, not least for the endorsement that it gives to what many of us have been saying for many years, namely, that prisons are not social dustbins and that they are totally inappropriate places for the mentally ill, the mentally disordered, vagrants, drunks, petty offenders and fine and maintenance defaulters? It is a condemnation of successive Home Secretaries and the prison department that the inquiry had to spend so much time on these subjects. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the recommendations will be implemented?
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the most important part of the report is its stress on obtaining public confidence in and interest in the prison department? This requires, on his part and on the part of the prison department, an openness of mind and approach that is crucial to any constructive and positive proposals. Will he give an assurance that that will be his policy from now on? May we have a very early debate on this extremely important subject?

Mr. Whitelaw: Now that I have been asked that question in a proper manner I can reply. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was Leader of the House once and ran the business then. If I tried to tell my right hon. Friend how to run the business of the House now, he would, quite rightly, tell me where to get off.
I hope that it will be possible to have a debate on this subject. I do not accept the criticisms of the prison department and the Home Office. though I believe that Ministers in successive Governments have been responsible for starving the prison service of money for a long time. In all previous programmes there have been cutbacks in the prison building programme. That is not the fault of the


prison department and the Home Office; it is the fault of successive Governments and of this House. The House must take that into account in future. The May report is extremely important in that light.
As for public confidence in the prison service and in the Home Office, we will examine the proposals of the May committee and do everything we can to give the prison service a sense of identity. That is very important. I also agree that there should be a sense of openness in the workings of the prison department, but there are questions of security which must also be taken into account.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome most of the report and congratulate my right hon. Friend. The report gives guidance for the future and clears the air, which will be of great benefit to the prison service. I ask my right hon. Friend to take careful notice of the possible closure of Dartmoor prison, which would have very serious social implications for Princetown. Dartmoor is not a palace or a rest home, but it can be improved. This is the way forward. Will the Home Secretary bear that in mind?

Mr. Whitelaw: The May committee passed some very sharp strictures on Dartmoor. However, I think that this House, and everyone concerned, must realise that in the present conditions of overcrowding in prisons, and the need to use all the available capacity, there is no question of closing down Dartmoor.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Government's acceptance of the pay scales to be introduced in January 1980 mean that they are not negotiable? If that is so, will the Home Secretary accept that these pay scales were recommended when inflation was much lower than it is now, and certainly when it was much lower than it will be in January next year? Will the Prison Officers' Association have the right to negotiate these new pay scales on recruitment? Does the Home Secretary accept that in chapter 7 of the report there is some criticism of the lack of opportunity, for those who enter the prison service through the basic grade, to make progress to governor grade? Will the Home Secretary arrange, with the Leader of the House, an early debate and draw the motion wide enough so that those of us who are interested in

initiating a debate about the need for a new approach in our penal system will have the opportunity to put these points? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the report deals with improving the management of the present system?

Mr. Whitelaw: If there were to be a debate, I would welcome, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the widest possible discussion, because it is an important issue, The Government have accepted all the recommendations on pay of the May committee. That is important. We are prepared to negotiate on issues concerning the various other matters set out in the report and to take them into account, but I repeat that we have accepted all the recommendations on pay and allowances. The career structure, is something we should discuss in debate. I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says, though I believe we should consider the matter further.

Mr. Speaker: I make it clear to the House that I shall he able to call those hon. Members who have been rising only if their colleagues are kind enough to be brief.

Mr. Stanbrook: Taking into account the Government's acceptance of the recommendations in the May report, can my right hon. Friend say by how much the pay levels of prison officers will increase on 1 January next year compared with last year?

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is 28 per cent.

Mr. Joseph Dean: The Home Secretary has referred at length to the proposals in the report concerning those officers working within the prison service. Is he able to say what will be awarded to the industrial workers in the prison service? There is some unrest among them, as they feel that they have been unfairly dealt with.

Mr. Whitelaw: Their pay and conditions are subject to various Civil Service agreements negotiated through the Civil Service Department. They will continue to be negotiated in that way.

Mr. Farr: The House will be grateful to Mr. Justice May and his committee


for their painstaking work and we look forward to debating their proposals soon. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of strength in what was said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about the need to segregate prisoners who are mentally disturbed or disordered? This issue is referred to in paragraph 3.35 of the report. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the recent riot at Gartree—which cost the taxpayer £2 million—was largely instigated by a prisoner who should never have been in Gartree? He had a long record of severe mental disorder. If we are parsimonious concerning such matters we will be very foolish.

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what my hon. Friend says, as I believe the whole House does. It is a question of having the resources to provide alternative accommodation for such prisoners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is in touch with the health authorities about this issue and I trust that we shall make progress.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Home Secretary aware that my colleagues and I also welcome the recognition given in this report to the calmness and determination of prison officers in Northern Ireland? They have worked under pressures and conditions unknown in any part of the United Kingdom. They have, according to the report, to deal with the bizarre, abhorrent and degrading protests taking place in the Maze. In the light of the recent killings of prison officers in Northern Ireland, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the security arrangements for those officers?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says and I fully endorse—as a result of my own experience—some of his remarks. The question of security is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he is concerned about this problem and has it very much in mind.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In the light of the conflicting demands on resources for building a new prison every year and for alternative systems of dealing with those in prison, does the Home Secretary recollect that the overcrowding is confined

to the local prisons, which house one-third of the present population? In those prisons the population could easily be reduced by finding alternative ways of dealing with some prisoners. I have in mind detoxification centres and secure mental hospitals which ought to be financed out of the DHSS vote. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that is considered first before he embarks on the building of one new prison per year?

Mr. Whitelaw: We are continuing with the prison building programme, though that is a long-term project, as the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate. I agree with what he says about alternatives to prison. I am extremely keen to see the development of a system of non-custodial sentences wherever appropriate. We will do everything we can to keep people out of prison and treat them elsewhere if it is at all possible. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me into bartering my own vote against that of the DHSS.

Mr. Haynes: In view of the problems of the mentally ill in our prisons, will the Home Secretary explain what he proposes to do about those authorities which have not yet embarked upon a programme of medium secure units?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sure that the answer is to continue to press my right hon. Friend as hard as possible.

Mr. Prescott: Has the Home Secretary noted that the committee, in addition to its investigations into the justifiable industrial relations grievances of prison officers, was concerned equally about the nature of the prison regime? However, it did not have sufficient time to study that issue. Does the Home Secretary accept the report's conclusion, as in my report on the Hull Prison riots, that the prison regime should be more open and concerned with human containment rather than
the rhetoric of 'treatment and training'",
which the Home Secretary publicly endorsed a few weeks ago? Will he now set up a further study into the "open prison regime" to establish what this means and to implement it in our prisons?

Mr. Whitelaw: The May committee used an important phrase when it referred to "positive custody". In paragraph 4.46 it stated:
That is, it has to be secure and it must carry out all the intentions of the courts and society, in that respect. On the other hand, penal establishments must also so far as possible be helpful and purposive communities and not be allowed to degenerate into mere uncaring institutions dulled by their own unimaginative and unenterprising routines.
I fully accept that.

Mr. Ryman: When considering the recommendations of Mr. Justice May's report, will the Home Secretary consider the work of the parole board, which has recently released many people who have been convicted of offences involving violence who reappear in court, and has refused to release persons who could be rehabilitated? Since the Home Secretary has ministerial responsibility for the parole board, will he monitor its work and make recommendations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have more than an administrative responsibility for the parole board. The person who releases people or does not release people is standing here and is answerable to the House for all his actions on that score. The parole board recommends. I decide, and I am responsible to the House. I am sure the House wishes that to be so. I have to take all the blame when things go wrong. I have to understand that when things go right nobody will thank me for it. I do not mind that.

Mr. Soley: Does the Home Secretary accept that there can be no reform in prisons until we reduce the pressure on the prison population? Will he give urgent attention to chapter 3, paragraphs 26 to 30, of the report, which suggest that we can learn much from Holland about the reduction in prison sentences and prison populations? Does he agree that if we do not follow that lead we shall face further riots which will lead to the deaths of prison officers and prisoners and a consequent deterioration in morale and conditions for both staff and prisoners?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member raises an important issue. I know of his interest. I value the work of the probation service as a means of keeping people out of

prison, of promoting non-custodial sentences, and of providing help for people who are released from prison. That work should be appreciated.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen today's story in the Daily Mirror which indicates that a greater quantity of psychotropic drugs—commonly known among prisoners as "the liquid cosh"—is flowing into Brixton, which is intended for remand prisoners, than would be expected to be used at a hospital such as Broadmoor? In the Home Secretary's quest for greater openness in the prison service, will he institute an inquiry into that allegation to find out whether it is true? If it is true, will he try to organise the transfer to hospital where they should be, of prisoners who need such drugs?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the story is a misrepresentation of the truth, but I shall look into it further. I shall state simply the principle governing the use of drugs in prison. Drugs are prescribed to prisoners only when, in the clinical judgment of prison medical officers or other doctors, such treatment is justified for the restoration of health or the relief of symptoms. Except in emergencies, they are not administered without a prisoner's consent. That is the principle which must be upheld.

Mr. Heffer: The Home Secretary has said that the Government accept the report. It has been welcomed by the Opposition Front Bench. Will the problems which have led to difficulties at Walton prison be solved as a result of the report? Will there be a speedy solution to those problems?

Mr. Whitelaw: I welcome the opportunity of replying to the hon. Member on that specific issue. The committee was asked to examine the situation at that prison to see whether an issue of general principle was involved. The committee found that such an issue was not involved and accordingly made no recommendations. I have learnt of this problem at first hand. If the national executive of the Prison Officers' Association makes representations to me on this matter, I shall be pleased for the Minister in charge to go through all the issues.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (AGRICULTURE MINISTERS' MEETING)

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about meetings that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I attended in Luxembourg.
My right hon. Friend, who is this afternoon accompanying the Prime Minister on her visit to the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic, represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Council of Ministers (Fisheries) on 29 October, and at meetings of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture) on 29 and 30 October.
The Fisheries Council agreed to set up a high-level group of officials to consider the state of fish stocks and the proposals which the Commission intends to put forward for their future management. This will prepare the way for discussion at the next meeting of the Council on 3 and 4 December, and will enable a fresh start to be made on the negotiation of an acceptable common fisheries policy. The Council also extended to the end of the year, on terms that continue to safeguard the United Kingdom's position, the existing Council decision on fishing operations in 1979.
At an informal meeting of the Council of Ministers (Agriculture), Vice-President Gundelach described the crisis approaching for the common agricultural policy through its rising cost and the impending exhaustion of the Community's "own resources", which finance it. There was a general discussion of possible methods of reducing the cost of the policy, particularly on milk and sugar. The Commission will be making proposals in due course. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the United Kingdom would not agree to any increase in the ceiling on "own resources" or any measure intended to evade effect of that ceiling in limiting the cost of the CAP.
The formal meeting of the Agriculture Council was concerned almost entirely with sheepmeat. My right hon. Friend informed

formed the Council of recent developments in relation to France's import restrictions and demanded an assurance that the French Government would comply with the judgment of the European Court by removing immediately and permanently all levies or restrictions of any kind on imports of sheepmeat from the United Kingdom. The French Minister declined to give such an assurance. Other Ministers expressed the strongest disapproval of France's attitude. My right hon. Friend made it clear that this was the first time that a member country had decided positively to ignore the Treaty and the verdict of the European Court, and that this constituted a threat to the very foundations of the Community. The Commission supported the view of my right hon. Friend and stated that the action of the French Government was not just playing with fire but was playing with potential catastrophe. The Commissioner stated that he would be raising this crucial issue at today's meeting of the Commission and would be recommending that it should take action against the French Government to secure early French compliance with the Court's decision.
There was also some further discussion of proposals for a Common Market organisation for sheepmeat, but no progress was made. France proposed the unbinding of the Community's obligations to New Zealand and other third countries under the GATT, so as to enable the Community to control or reduce the level of imports. My right hon. Friend said that in no circumstances would we agree to any diminution of New Zealand's rights. He also rejected French suggestions for intervention measures, and made it clear that we could not accept proposals for Community-financed premiums that discriminated grossly against the United Kingdom, or any regime that did not fully safeguard the interests of British producers and consumers, and New Zealand.

Mr. Mason: We are obliged to the Minister of State for making that statement in the absence of his right hon. Friend.
First, with regard to fisheries, is he aware that there is still a strong suspicion within the industry that the Minister will allow the fisheries policy, endorsed by all parties in the House, and by the


industry, to be compromised, and that the new study on conservation and fish stocks, particularly in terms of the social and economic effects of conservation, deepens the suspicion that, in the end, smaller total catches will be allowable and reduced quotas will be forced on Britain? I hope that the hon. Gentleman can once again reassure the House and the industry that the Government intend to stand by the all-party fisheries industry plan that was endorsed in the House on 26 July.
Secondly, on sheepmeat, from what the Minister said it would seem that the French are adopting this intransigent attitude against the Courts' decision to force the Common Market into a new sheepmeat regime in order to gain preferential treatment for their farmers and to frustrate eventual complete free access, as well as threatening the future levels of import of New Zealand lamb into this country.
The hon. Gentleman knows that these are major matters. I wonder whether he can tell us the extent to which he will be able to keep all his Common Market allies with him when the Minister has to battle to resist this opposition.
If free access of sheepmeat is agreed, what will the Government do to protect the British consumer? As we know, there is a vast disparity between sheepmeat prices in France as compared with Britain. Indeed, in France the price of sheepmeat is one-third higher than in Britain. Consequently, when there is free access there will be a merging of price levels. The hon. Gentleman's Ministry gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on sheepmeat, suggesting that prices in Britain would rise by between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. What assurance can the hon. Gentleman give to the British housewife that that will not happen? It will obviously benefit the farmers, but it looks as though the housewife may eventually suffer.
Finally, what possible methods were discusssed for reducing the cost of the common agricultural policy, especially in relation to milk and sugar.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) for his welcome, in general, for what took place this week.
First, our discussion of the common agricultural policy was of a general nature. In that discussion my right hon. Friend put forward, in particular, the need to control prices as the most effective way of achieving a common agricultural policy within proper bounds for future financing. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that at the price fixing this summer we achieved the lowest level of any price fixing since we joined the Community. It was lower than any level achieved by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) when he was responsible for these matters.
I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said about sheepmeat. In the final sentence of my statement this afternoon I emphasised that the interests of the consumer are extremely important. I emphasise that the real issue is freedom of access to the French market. Freedom of trade is fundamental to the European Community. It is something that is enjoyed by almost every other industry in this country into Europe, and for French industry into this country. The issue at stake is that our sheep industry should also have that degree of free access.
I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that in any sheepmeat regime that may be discussed or introduced we shall put the interests of the consumer forward as of primary importance, as well as the interests of the producer and those of New Zealand.
As to what may be done in the present situation, and in other countries within the EEC, I emphasise that this is not simply a dispute between Britain and France; it is a dispute between the Community and France. In that respect it is for the Commission, as the custodian of the EEC and of the Treaty, to decide what legal action should be taken to deal with the present problem. As I said, the Commission meets today to deal with that.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question of the importance of fisheries. I repeat yet again to the House that fisheries are not up for trading. The fishing industry of the United Kingdom stands on its own merits. Whether in relation to the budget or the common agricultural policy, matters in connection with the fishing industry stand apart and are not up for bartering.


I give the right hon. Gentleman that categoric assurance.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Have not the Government yet realised that the success of France in the past in getting her way and placing her stamp on the Community was due to the fact that it was realised that her co-operation with the Community, and even her membership of it, depended upon her getting her way? Have not the Government yet understood that this is the nature of the game and that we shall get nothing which the interests of this nation require unless it is clear that our membership of the Community is what is negotiable?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) does not understand the nature or character of the problem that France is posing the Community at present. The French Government have committed an act which has been declared illegal by the European Court. It is also an act that has been condemned by every member Government of the Community. To the extent that this is an illegal act, it is a completely new and unprecedented situation. I ask the right hon. Member to understand that, and the way in which it has to be dealt with.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend reconsider two of the recommendations of the committee on trade and industry in its report on the British fishing industry, namely, the banning of dumping at sea and the banning of transshipping? Unless these recommendations are implemented, there can be no accurate records of the attrition of the fish breeding stock. I hope that this Government, unlike the previous Government, will take those two recommendations seriously.
Is my hon. Friend seized of the point that it is doomed to failure to try to control milk production by reducing the price per gallon? The only effect of that is that producers try to produce still more milk to spread their overhead costs over a greater gallonage. That is the key to any system which will bring the supply of milk into closer relationship with the actual demand for it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that one cannot neglect any means of trying to contain any additions to the milk surplus and the butter mountain in Europe, and the need to contain supplies. I assure my hon. Friend that in the discussions we had this week, and in those we shall have in future, we looked and will look at all means at our disposal. I believe that restraint on prices is an effective and important means and one that we should seek to follow through.
On fisheries policy, I am well aware of the work done by the sub-committee to which my hon. Friend referred and his participation in that work, In that sense, I am sure that he welcomes the fact that between now and the December meeting of the Council of Ministers on Fisheries there will be a scientific examination at Community level of how fish stocks should be conserved. I believe that at that stage, or in our later deliberations, the points that my hon. Friend raised will certainly be taken into account.

Mr. Jay: As the French habitually break the rules of this organisation when it suits them, why should we keep them?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman ignores—chooses to ignore is perhaps a better way of putting it—the crucial heart of this issue. It is not simply a question of rules; it is a question of law. That is what elevates this problem to a much higher and very different level than any other issue faced during the 20 years of the Community's existence. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see the problem in that light and to realise that it is not just a matter of rules but a matter of law.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on their stand in Luxembourg yesterday. I hope that they will stand firm in the future, as their predecessors did last year. Under the Treaty of Rome, are we bound to accept a sheepmeat regime? If so, can the Minister give an assurance that the guarantee deficiency payments scheme will not be traded in for an intervention system in France? Can he also give an assurance that he will not dismantle the marketing system for wool? Also, in


view of the crisis in the sheep sector of the industry in this country now, will he consider increasing the guarantee deficiency payment by 20p per kilo to our sheep farmers?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The guarantee price for sheepmeat at present is one of the matters that are subject to the annual agricultural review that is about to take place. I am, of course, very well aware of the importance of wool. This is not for consideration at present in relation to the sheepmeat regime.
As to deficiency payments, or what method might be used in a sheepmeat regime, we have already voiced very firmly our concern about the high costs to the Community of an intervention-type system. We shall certainly continue to scrutinise very closely whatever proposals come forward. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that until a regime is worked out we shall maintain our deficiency payments system.
As to the necessity or otherwise of having a sheepmeat regime, under the Treaty of Rome it is incumbent upon the Commission to bring forward proposals to the Council of Ministers on the way in which trade in particular commodities should be regulated. That is what the Commission has done in some respects already in relation to sheepmeat. It is that which we shall be discussing in the months ahead.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for what I have said this afternoon. Until a regime is worked out and agreed for sheepheat, as the decision of the European Court made clear, there is nothing to prevent the French Government taking their own national action in order to protect the incomes of their producers. That point cannot be emphasised enough.

Mr. Body: When on earth will the Council of Ministers deal with a scandal that is far greater than that of the so-called sheepmeat or butter scandal, namely, the growing surpluses of sugar as production rises and consumption goes down? These massive surpluses of sugar are now being exported to the world market at prices that are most certainly dumping prices, causing Third world exports to be displaced and great destitution

to tens of thousands of people in poor countries.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As my hon. Friend will have noticed, this was one of the matters referred to in the general discussion in Luxembourg this week, because, alongside milk, the problems of sugar are the next most important in terms of surpluses. My hon. Friend is also absolutely right, particularly in relation to sugar, when he says that this creates problems for Third world countries. It is that aspect that we shall be emphasising in our future discussions.

Mr. Maclennan: I accept that the Minister is right to focus upon the breach of law, which is a Community matter, but does he also accept that the principal damage by this breach of law has been suffered by British sheep producers who, as a result of the closure of the French market at the peak period of their sales season, have suffered a diminution of their returns? What action do the Government propose to take to deal with the damage that is being suffered now? Will the Minister reaffirm that the conclusion of a sheepmeat regime is a wholly separate matter from the French breach of the law that has already occurred?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I absolutely accept what the hon. Gentleman said in his closing remarks. There are two separate issues here. One is the decision of the French Government to defy the European Court, which is a legal matter on its own, and the other and longer-term question is whether we have a sheepmeat regime, and, if so, what that should be. That is why I emphasise, in reply to an earlier question, that there is a remedy in the hands of the French Government already to deal with any bridging between those two items. I also accept that prices obtained by British sheep producers are lower than they were at this period last year. There is no doubt that the lack of access to the French market had its influence on those prices. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter that we have had in mind in all of the representations that we have made in the Council of Ministers.
United Kingdom hill sheep farmers, in particular, had a very difficult time last winter, and they have had a bad time in the store sales this autumn. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend has


brought forward the review of hill livestock compensatory amounts. Indeed, tomorrow we shall be having a meeting with representatives of the industry in relation to what those amounts should be. They are due for payment as from 1 January.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that if questions and answers are to be as long as those to which we have just listened I shall not be able to call some hon. Members who are hoping to catch my eye. Those who are successful in doing so can help others if they are brief. Otherwise, we shall have to move on.

Mr. Hicks: Can my hon. Friend justify to the House the reasons for the apparent optimism that the review that is to take place with regard to fishing stocks and conservation will demonstrate an indication by the European Council and the Commission of a greater understanding of the United Kingdom situation and will not be just another delaying tactic?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I emphasise that we see this as no more than simply a fresh start and an opportunity to open new negotiations. How those negotiations may proceed will be a matter of time. We shall have to see. However, certainly I put no higher emphasis on it than that at present.

Mr. Torney: Does the Minister agree that the only real way to protect British interests in the light of the French action is to act unilaterally? When French milk starts flooding into Britain in January, will he take that kind of action in order to safeguard not only our doorstep deliveries but the jobs of thousands of workers in milk distribution?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we know perfectly well that all that he is seeking to do is to spread speculative scare stories concerning this situation. I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that if that is the kind of argument that he is putting forward I hope that he will realise that what he is advocating is illegal action, and illegal action cannot be justified even if it is to meet illegal action by someone else.

Mr. Pollock: Does my hon. Friend accept that his probity and sturdy defence of fishing and farming interests are held in particularly high regard in the North-East of Scotland? Further, while I welcome his general assurance about there being no intention to trade off the British fishing industry against any general question of the EEC budget, may I ask for a specific assurance that at the next meeting in December he will bear particularly in mind the vital needs of the fishermen around the Scottish coasts?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I willingly give that assurance. I add to that by saying that the one thing that we welcome—the previous Government also welcomed it—was having the attendance, throughout the negotiations, of representatives of the fishing industry from all parts of the United Kingdom. It is our intention to continue to seek their advice and to consult them at every stage of our negotiations.

Mr. John Morris: The Minister repeatedly talks of a breach of the law. What legal action can be taken by the Commission or the United Kingdom Government to enforce the judgment of the European Court? Has the Minister thought of the possibility of a British national suing in the French courts to enforce this judgment or to obtain damages, and would he give help in that event?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The present situation, as I emphasised a moment ago, is that the French Government are in dispute with the Community. Matters were clarified at the Council of Ministers on Tuesday as to precisely what the French Government's attitude was. Under the Treaty of Rome the remedy for that rests in the hands of the Commission. The Commission is meeting today to decide what it will do. It would be premature for me, in the House of Commons, on the actual day that the Commission is meeting to decide what to do, to try to speculate on what that action might be.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's undertaking that there will be no trade-off of fishing interests in any EEC negotiations. Will he assure the House that in reaching an established fishing policy there will be no trade-off within that policy of inshore interests


and historical community rights, particularly around the coastline of Scotland, in view of the resulting social and economic consequences if these industries were to collapse?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We welcome the the study of the scientific aspects of conservation. However, we must also consider the very point that my hon. Friend mentioned—the socio-economic aspect and the dependence of communities on the fishing industry. I willingly assure him that that will be a major factor in any renegotiation.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister said earlier that the consumers' interests must be protected. How does he intend to do that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is quite evident that if a sheepmeat regime that depended totally on intervention were introduced, because of the difference in prices between France and the United Kingdom, it could have a disastrous effect on consumer prices in the United Kingdom. The kind of regime that will operate is one of the matters under discussion. We believe that there are other regimes that would be much better able to look after the interests of the consumer and would balance the interests of consumers, producers and New Zealand. These are the three factors that must be taken into account.

Mr. Myles: I welcome the statement made by my hon. Friend. In the interests of brevity I shall wear only my fishing hat, even though I am also interested in sheep. I welcome the high-level study of the fish stocks and I hope that it will produce an answer very quickly. If the answer is that there are reasonable herring stocks in the North Sea, will the Minister ensure some sort of allocation to North Sea fishermen in order to keep our industry alive?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: One of the benefits of this committee is that it is starting on the basis of a scientific assessment of the fish stocks. All the national measures introduced by the previous Government and ourselves have been based on scientific advice in relation to conservation. In that sense it is sensible to begin on that basis.
On the question of herring stocks, there is, as of now, no scientific evidence that

the stocks have recovered sufficiently to enable us to open fishing. The British Government will resist any attempt to open fishing until we are certain that the stocks have recovered to a level sufficient to allow commercial fishing once more.

Miss Maynard: On the question of freedom of access, does the Minister agree that the French are blocking our lamb in order to use this as a bargaining counter to assist the flow of milk into this country in due course? Does he agree that we now have sufficient evidence to show that the only real solution to this problem for the British people, consumers and producers, is to get Britain out of the Market?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Lady is entitled to make her own speculations about the motives of the French Government. The job of the British Government is to deal with this strenuously and firmly, as we have. The answer to the second part of the hon. Lady's question is "No".

Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the needs of the British producers of sugar beet in the eastern region of England? I urge him not take too much notice of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), because this industry gives considerable employment not only to farm workers but to transport workers and others in my area.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Once again, there is a balance here. While it is up to the British Government to look after the interests of the sugar beet producers, equally, we have our obligations under the Lomé convention and we fully intend to fulfil them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome the statement that there can be no sacrifice of our legitimate demands in fishing in order to secure a reduction of the ludicrous budgetary burden that has been imposed upon us. Will the Minister confirm that, whatever the outcome of the study of stocks, no settlement is acceptable that does not provide for a 12-mile exclusive zone, a dominant share in the catch up to 50 miles, and the ability to apply our own national conservation measures to conserve stocks in the waters up to 200 miles? In that way we can


escape from this fetish of free access, on this subject at least.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I repeat the assurance that the Prime Minister gave to the industry on more than one occasion about our objectives in the negotiations and the principles that must be observed. These are supported by the Labour Front Bench and the industry. I assure the hon. Member that we remain every bit as firm in our support of those principles as we have throughout.

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members will ask brief questions I will call all those who have been rising since the beginning of supplementary questions.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that many of us sincerely hope that the United Kingdom Government will continue to break the rules on fish conservation measures until those rules can be made a little more intelligent? Is he further aware of the depressing effect of the continuing ban on lamb exports to France on the hill sheep farming industry? Will he undertake to take that factor into account—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member continues, another hon. Member will be cut out. The hon. Member really must try to ask a brief question, because we are well over time.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister take that factor into account in his current review of hill livestock compensatory allowances?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hill livestock compensatory allowances review is a wide one, and all factors will be taken into account.
On the fishing question, we do not believe that the measures that we have taken are illegal. It is true that they are being tested in the European Court, but we believe that we took those measures on legal grounds in the proper interests of conservation and in the absence of a common fisheries policy.

Mr. Straw: Has the Minister seen the report in today's Financial Times in which the reporter said that while the Minister had taken a hard line in negotiations by saying that the French would have to subsidise the French lamb

farmers out of their own national budget, he later said that he would consider a Community funding scheme? Is that report correct? If so, does it not represent the first stage of a shoddy compromise by the British Government in letting the French off the hook?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member is wrong to talk about a shoddy compromise. This Government, and indeed the previous Government, have always shown themselves ready to discuss a sheepmeat regime. We have spelt out our concern over, for example, an intervention scheme, which could be very expensive in terms of resources. We believe that we have approached the negotiations in a constructive manner, as did the previous Government. We will look at any sensible scheme that is put forward and judge it on its merits, subject to the qualifications that I have mentioned today.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister not realise that the determination of the French Government to protect French farmers will also be reflected in their attitude towards the common agricultural policy? Does he not realise also that he has not the slightest chance of changing the CAP as long as France remains opposed to any alterations? What does he intend to do about that? Do the Government have any alternatives? Do they envisage any possible use of our membership as a bargaining weapon by saying that if the alterations are not made this country will withdraw from the EEC? The British people would be delighted.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I remind the hon. Member that with a Conservative Government representing the United Kingdom at the last price fixing, we achieved the lowest rate of price increase since we joined the Community——far lower than under his Government. I also remind him that in that price fixing milk prices did not increase. Perhaps the hon. Member did not listen to the statement, but in the longer term, the moment of reality is approaching for the CAP. The CAP budget is now nearing the ceiling of its resources and that, in itself is a discipline that all the Community member States must recognise. Indeed, this was acknowledged in the discussions this week.

Mr. Spearing: Is not the real problem the insistence on free movement of food and agriculture products irrespective of the damage that it does? Will the hon Gentleman confirm that from 31 December this year the derogation on the movement of milk from France into Britain will cease? If he has to choose between the existence of the dairy and agriculture industries as we know them today and obeying the edicts of the court set up under the Treaty of Rome, which will he choose?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is true that within the Community there must be freedom of access. That is something that we have observed in relation to potatoes, for example. As to milk, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there are restrictions on health grounds, in that we lay down particular standards in relation to the movement of milk. Discussions are currently taking place within the EEC as to what the health standards might be for a Community regime. All I can say is that we intend to maintain those health standards in relation to milk that is available in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British housewife in particular will applaud the action of the French in restricting imports of lamb and mutton since it will keep prices down in our shops? Is he further aware that many of us also agree with the French decision not to bow to the kangaroo court in Luxembourg, and that we wish that the British Government would take the same sort of stand in the interests of Britain?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This court was set up under the Treaty of Rome, and under the Treaty of Accession that was passed by this House that court has proper legal status. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating illegality, I hope that he realises precisely what he is saying.

Mr. Leighton: Does not the Minister understand that the French civil service has been well trained to protect the French national interest, usually by dressing things up in Community language, although it is quite willing to break the rules if need be? Rather than berate them, as the Community Court brings judicial decisions into political affairs and is an instrument of federalism, he should welcome this precedent, which we might

well want to employ after Dublin on far more important things than lamb chops.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must recognise the facts of the case. Room is open to the French Government to look after the legitimate interests of their industry. Those means are open to them if they choose to do so.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition, and some leaders of our fishing industry, are deeply anxious that the proposed high-level group of fisheries officials will be a smoke screen behind which the Prime Minister will negotiate a reduction in Britain's net contribution to the EEC budget in return for future concessions in the Fisheries negotiations? Will he go some way towards alleviating our fears by giving an assurance that any EEC fisheries settlement will be put to a vote in this House?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I made it absolutely clear earlier that there is no way in which, in the fisheries negotiations, the British fishing industry is up for trading in any sense at all. If the hon. Gentleman cares to put that kind of construction on my remarks, that is up to him. However, before he asks such a question he ought to consult members of the fishing industry who were present at the discussions in Luxembourg this week.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, but it has arisen only in the last hour and a quarter. Perhaps you will cast your mind back and recall that twice in the Session 1959–1960 I was called to order by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster for asking more than one supplementary question. I realise only too well that the precedents and customs have altered since that time. However, when we consider the situation today, when we have had two statements, we see that an hour and a quarter—over one-fifth of the time allotted before 10 o'clock—has been used up on statements and questons to Ministers. That is very unsatisfactory to hon. Members who are interested in the main business of the House. As a matter of order, I wonder whether you might have words with the Leader of the House—I notice that he is


present—to see whether this whole matter can be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure for it to consider when it is set up later this Session?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The House will recall that at the beginning of my Speakership I tried very hard to return to the custom of three Speakers ago—Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster—when only one supplementary question was allowed. If any hon. members asked more, they were just not called for a considerable time. I would be only too pleased to have the support of the House in taking such a step, but my own experience is that the House wobbles on this matter according to which hon. Member rises.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had the distinct impression that when very occasionally in the last Parliament you allowed a second supplementary question, because quite clearly the Minister who answered had evaded the answer that the House wanted, that innovation appeared to meet with considerable approbation and not resentment.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend are talking about the same thing. The matter that has been raised is the difficulty that arises when hon. Members who have been called to ask supplementary questions selfishly ask two or three questions. We could deal with many more questions every day if hon. Members asked one supplementary question.

BILLS PRESENTED

PROTECTION OF TRADING INTERESTS

Mr. Secretary Nott, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Howell, Sir Ian Gilmour, Mr. John Biffen and Mr. Attorney-General, presented a Bill to provide protection from requirements, prohibitions and judgments imposed or given under the laws of countries outside the United Kingdom and affecting the trading or other interests of persons in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed.

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. Secretary Nott, supported by Mr. Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John Biffen and Mr. Paul Channon, presented a Bill to provide for the reduction of the public dividend capital of the British Airways Board, the subsequent dissolution of the Board and the vesting of all its property, rights, liabilities and obligations in a company nominated by the Secretary of State; to make provision with respect to the finances of that company; to amend the Civil Aviation Act 1971; to make further provision with respect to the investigation of accidents arising out of or in the course of air navigation; and to amend the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motions relating to Procedure, Short Speeches, Standing Order No. 66 (Second reading committees), Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), Calling of amendments at end of debate, Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply), Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), Select Committees related to Government Departments, Scottish Affairs and Nomination of Select Committee on Scottish Affairs (Committee of Selection) have not been disposed of by Ten o'clock, any Amendments to the first Motion, which have been selected by Mr. Speaker, may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed forthwith to put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr, English).

Mr. English: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is debatable, which no doubt is one reason why you have not selected the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the longer we


spend on this motion the less time we shall have for the procedure discussion later, because at 10 o'clock I shall be obliged to put amendments without discussion at all if the debate on this motion goes on for too long.

Mr. English: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to speak for very long on this topic. I merely intend to point out that although I accept the principle of the motion—because it seemed to work well on the previous occasion when we used it, and enabled us to arrive at decisions on all those issues of procedure which are often stocked up for a long time without decisions being made upon them—it requires you, Mr. Speaker, to put all the outstanding questions at 10 o'clock. That may lead to some misfortune, because not all the motions on the same topic coincide.
By way of illustration, I refer to the first two motions. The first proposes that the House
takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78, and agrees with the recommendations contained in para. 2.9.
If we agree with those recommendations it means that there will be short speeches between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m., which is roughly the same as what is stated in motion No. 2. However, the recommendations referred to in the first motion also state that you should ignore the customs of the House and not give priority to Privy Councillors before 7 o'clock. Of course, if we continued with the normal custom it would clearly be possible for Privy Councillors to preempt the business up to 7 o'clock, when all other Back Benchers from 7 o'clock to 9 o'clock would be limited to short 10-minute speeches.
I shall not go into that issue, Mr. Speaker, and you would rule me out of

order if I did. The problem is that, by implication, Privy Councillors are mentioned in motion No. 1, because they are mentioned in para. 2.9 of the report, whereas they are not mentioned in motion No. 2.
It is sloppy drafting, although I understand the possible reasons for it. If the two motions are put and carried, Mr. Speaker, you will be in the position of having to obey the first and not give Privy Councillors precedence, or having to obey the second, which does not mention Privy Councillors. You should not have to tolerate the sloppy drafting of others.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to debate the matter with the hon. Member. I simply remind the House that Privy Councillors have never been able and never will be able to take up the entire time until 7 o'clock. It was not my predecessors' custom, and it is not mine, to call two Privy Councillors from the same party one after another. I call another Back Bencher from the same party before the second Privy Councillor.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, if proceedings on the Motions relating to Procedure, Short Speeches, Standing Order No. 66 (Second reading committees), Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), Calling of amendments at end of debate, Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply), Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), Select Committees related to Government Departments, Scottish Affairs and Nomination of Select Committee on Scottish Affairs (Committee of Selection) have not been disposed of by Ten o'clock, any Amendments to the first Motion, which have been selected by Mr. Speaker, may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed forthwith to put the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.

FREE PORTS

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Liverpool, Waver-tree): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the designation of tax-free zones in inner city areas in the United Kingdom in which United Kingdom taxation, customs and excise duties would not apply.
The House will be aware of the serious economic situation facing the country generally and particularly the problems in some of our larger cities, many of which have in the past relied heavily on port-generated traffic and associated industries. The injection of massive Government grants through regional aid, whilst bringing short-term prosperity to deprived areas, has resulted in long-term disasters. Companies close plants in those areas where they have the smallest financial commitment.
In addition, regional aid has relocated industry outside the city boundaries, taking jobs from the inner to the outer areas. That has resulted in declining city centres and increasing numbers of unskilled unemployed.
The principal aim of the Bill is to reverse the outward drift and bring back private enterprise to inner city areas. It is not proposed to do that by offering more Government grants and subsidies but to provide tax advantages that would give a range of incentives for the creation of wealth. There must be a reason for businesses to find risk capital. They will do that only if they believe that there is a good chance of making profits. A tax-free trade zone within a free port is therefore important.
Let me explain how it could work. Initially the Government would designate a number of tax-free zones with coastal or inland port access in the inner city areas where there is sufficient land on the waterfront that can be set apart. In New Orleans in the United States, the port covers 655,000 square feet, occupying some 19 acres of land. Some free ports are larger and others smaller.
Goods landed in these zones do not need any form of Customs entry procedure and do not attract duty, excise taxes or VAT. Once there, the goods can be manufactured, reassembled or consolidated and shipped out to other countries

with the minimum of formality. Duty is payable on foreign goods only when they cross the frontier of the free port and enter Britain.
The House will at once see the advantages of designating a free port. First, overseas plant can be located without the risk of foreign investment. To the small business man it offers the chance of holding on to his capital longer, which helps with cash flow. It frees the small business man from the bureaucracy and paperwork entailed in Customs and Excise duties. He can discard substandard goods and not pay for shrinkage and evaporation. There can be permitted manipulation within the zone, and rates of duty may be lower if merchandise is disassembled or otherwise changed before entering this country. It will also permit storage of goods on which there is a quota limitation for import to Britain until the next quota period.
Besides providing space for manufacturing plant and more bonded warehouse and storage facilities, the zone could also house a world trade and exhibition centre aimed at advertising British goods. The relaxation of planning and building controls would allow businesses to expand quickly and enable buildings to be erected in a free-enterprise atmosphere. As to who would run the port, a board of commissioners would be responsible for maintenance and supervision within the port.
The free port will not reverse the downward trend in some of our major ports, but it is one of a number of measures required to free our economy by allowing private enterprise to function without further Government intervention. Tax-free trade zones in free ports require no Government aid, no increase in the public payroll and no loss of duty.
Those who think that a free port is a centre for the black market and contraband are mistaken. Instead of duty being paid as soon as the goods leave a ship's hold, it is deferred and paid only when the goods leave the zone and come into Britain.
Britain is facing serious problems. There is a slow, continuous loss of private moneys abroad, with the skills and jobs that go with that. The continued fall of the pound is merely one indicator that radical action is required, and we need


action in the private sector. The free port will be one step forward. If we are to set our people free we must trust them, and we can make a start by reducing controls in the public sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Philip Holland, Mr. Charles Morrison, Mr. Chris Patten, Mr. Barry Porter, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Martin Stevens, Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Eric Cockeram and Mr. Graham Page.

FREE PORTS

Mr. Anthony Steen accordingly presented a Bill to empower the designation of tax-free zones in inner city areas in the United Kingdom in which United Kingdom taxation, customs and excise duties would not apply: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before I call the Leader of the House to move the first procedural motion, it may be helpful if I say something about the order of the debate. Following the agreement of the House to the business motions, I propose that there should be a general debate on the motions relating to Procedure—that is Nos. 1 to 18—and on the amendments that Mr. Speaker has selected. That debate may continue until 10 o'clock. At 10 o'clock Mr. Speaker will proceed, in accordance with the business motion, to put successively the Questions on the motions and on any selected amendments that hon. Members may wish to move. Mr. Speaker has placed in the Lobby a list of the amendments that have been selected.

4.59 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78, and agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 2.9.
I should like to preface my remarks with a few personal observations. First, I wish to say how much we regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). His presence always adds such lustre to any parliamentary occasion. The House will know that he is unwell and I am sure would wish to send its best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.
Secondly, I should like to offer a word of congratulation to the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams). It must be yet a further satisfaction to him today to see another section of his epoch-making report on procedure coming before the House.
When this Session's first debate on procedure took place on 25 June I called it a crucial day in the life of the House of Commons. I would not put the matter so high today. Nor is the attendance in the House quite up to the standard that we achieved on that occasion. However, I do claim that today's debate constitutes a further important step in the efforts to bring our procedures up to date.
In the long term, there is no task that this Government are undertaking that has greater significance than that of assisting the House to be more efficient and effective in discharging its duty of controlling and checking the Executive and promoting the liberties of the subject. That is the substance that lies behind the technicalities of the debate upon which we are about to embark.
We made clear in the Conservative Party manifesto that we attached great importance to reforming the procedures of the House in that it was our determination
to give the new House of Commons an early chance of coming to a decision on these proposals.
We took one leap forward towards redeeming that pledge in June. We take another smaller but still highly significant step today.
The 12 Select Committees are about to be appointed on the basis which the House has already approved. The Liaison Committee, about which I gave a pledge to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), will be the subect of a motion which I hope will be put down next week. The motion will set out its scope, size and terms of reference. Arrangements are in hand to appoint the Sub-Committees to which I referred and which are authorised by the House, including a Sub-Committee on nationalised industries, which will be set up shortly. The Committee on Welsh affairs has been authorised by the House and one on Scottish affairs will also be appointed, if the House approves the relevant motions on the Order Paper today.

Mr. Frank Hooley: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have a great deal to say and I do not wish to hold up the proceedings. With the permission of the House, I shall be replying at the end of the debate to points raised by hon. Members.

Mr. Hooley: I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Sub-Committees. Is it not the case that the Committees themselves will constitute the Sub-Committees?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: They are authorised to set up Sub-Committees and they will draw that authorisation from the House. No doubt, once the Committees are set up they will embark upon their task of setting up the Sub-Committees. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the point.
I have thought carefully about the way in which we should order our future discussions. I have discussed the matter with hon. Members from all parts of the House. I considered fully the special report of the Procedure Committee and I have been guided by the wish of the House to reach positive conclusions and make actual changes if it so wishes. In my opinion it is no help to have debates which evaporate into thin air without the opportunity being afforded to the House of making up its mind at the end of the day.
Therefore, I have tabled for debate a further set of motions upon which the House will be able to reach positive conclusions today. There are 18 in all. They cover three groups of recommendations. The first group are the Procedure Committee's recommendations on Private Members' Bills and speeches in Second Reading debates, which are recommendations (1) to (3) in the report. The second group covers the organisation of Sessions and sittings—recommendations (71) to (76). For the third group I have taken the opportunity to table motions on the various reports from the Sessional Committees on Procedure, which have been hanging about—if I may use that colloquial phrase—for years, some of them since 1976. They have been in danger of becoming the Cinderellas of the procedure world and are now, at last, afforded a transformation scene.
Today, the House will be given an opportunity to reach conclusions on all 10 reports. The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) and Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) helpfully suggested that I should reorder the orginal motions in order to simplify the arrangements for tabling amendments and taking the votes. I hope that the change will be for the convenience of the House. The substance remains unaltered, but the presentation is clearer. Not all hon. Members have the genius in these matters that is possessed


by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. Some people have no head for heights; others have no head for procedure.
In the first group of recommendations to which I referred we felt that it was wrong to table a motion that would restrict a Member's freedom to introduce a Bill under Standing Order No. 13, as proposed in the Procedure Committee's recommendation. I recognise that the provisions of that Standing Order are appreciated and utilised by many hon. Members as a means of ventilating at short notice matters which they consider to be of public importance. Certainly, I should decline to be a party to any attempt to deprive hon. Members of that freedom.
There are practical difficulties in determining the status of a text once it is lodged in the Public Bill Office, as envisaged by the Committee's recommendation. For example, it is not clear whether that would be the definitive text of a Ten-Minute Bill or whether the Member would be allowed to substitute a different version subsequently. Presumably, the House would require a time limit for the lodging of the text. If it is left until as late as the morning of the day itself, that would be inadequate time for inspection by other hon. Members. For those reasons, I believe that the matter should be considered in greater depth. I noticed that no hon. Member tabled an amendment to give effect to that recommendation. Therefore, I follow the wise advice of Lord Melbourne—I am leaving the matter alone.
However, the Government would support an experiment aimed at having shorter speeches in Second Reading debates, as is proposed in recommendation (2), if it is acceptable to the House and to Mr. Speaker or the occupant of the Chair. I notice that my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) have put down early-day motions with a similar objective. If the House so wishes, I assume that between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. the Chair would use its discretion to call hon. Members to order after they had spoken for 10 minutes, being guided by the number of Members who had indicated their wish

to speak. The occupant of the Chair would exercise that discretion if the number of Members significantly exceeded the number for whom time could otherwise be found. Of course, the Chair might find that, after an announcement proposing to exercise that discretion had been made, the number of Members wishing to speak was not as great as had been envisaged. In that case, no doubt, the Chair would not wish to be bound to restrict every speaker to 10 minutes. I am asking the House to agree to a motion which would afford such freedom to the Chair. It is a matter for the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that Second Reading debates are not the only occasion on which there is a vulger press of hon. Members wishing to speak. Why is the motion not drawn so that it also covers votes on Supply and the Adjournment of the House?

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: May I intervene at this stage, since it will save my making a speech, which will be a great advantage both as to time and otherwise?
Will my right hon. Friend indicate his attitude to the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), which reproduces part of paragraph 2.9 of the report of the Select Committee which refers to the privileges of Privy Councillors? I believe that the report is misconceived, because there are no such privileges sub nomine; it is merely a custom of the House. If the amendment were accepted, the Chair would find it virtually impossible ever to call a Privy Councilor before seven o'clock in a Second Reading debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a course which would have advantages as well as disadvantages.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Wait until you are on the Back Benches.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The matter does not arise, because the amendment has not been selected. The point was dealt with by Mr. Speaker from the Chair when he indicated that, although Privy Councillors have certain rights in the House, they are subject to regulation by the Chair.
My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is that we are moving into a new territory and this is in the nature of an experiment. We do not know how it will work. If it works satisfactorily, that will be the time to think of extending it.
Some hon. Members think that Front Bench speeches should also be restricted and that some Ministers are long-winded. There are distinguished precedents both inside and outside the House. St. Patrick preached for three days and three nights without ceasing, though it is not recorded whether it was to the same audience. Such propositions may be popular, but if the House reflects upon the matter it will see that the curtailment of Ministers' speeches would not extend the authority and effectiveness of the House. It would extend the effectiveness of the Executive, because it would be able to shelter behind that and avoid giving a full account of its activities to the House.
We are ready to support an experimental extension of the arrangements for Second Readings of Private Members' Bills as proposed in the Committee's recommendation (3). Those arrangements work well for Government Bills and an extension would relieve pressure on Private Members' time on the Floor of the House and improve the chances of a useful and uncontroversial Bill completing its passage.
However, I believe that we should approach the recommendation with caution because I would not want the new arrangement to work to the disadvantage of hon. Members who have drawn high places in the ballot or to be open to exploitation as a means of preventing the progress of other Bills. I propose, therefore, that the scheme should be on an experimental basis initially, with motions to refer Bills to Second Reading Committees being allowed on and after the seventh Private Members' day and only if they are unopposed. The experiment will be reviewed at the end of the Session.
The second group of motions covers the recommendations on motions proposing the dates for the Adjournment of the House, on debates on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, and on Friday sittings.
I must advise the House against accepting recommendation (71), which provides that the motion to suspend the Ten o'clock rule must, if it is to be successful, have the support of at least 200 Members. I respect the wish of the Procedure Committee to discourage the Government from moving suspensions except when it is essential and it is certainly my aim to avoid late sittings as far as possible. I am no more a natural insomniac than is any other hon. Member.
However, if we are realistic, we must accept that sittings after 10 o'clock will remain a regular feature of parliamentary business and I doubt whether it would be for the convenience of my hon. Friends, or even of Labour Members should they ever find themselves on this side of the House again, to have to vote in those numbers, especially when a three-line Whip is not in force.
As regards recommendation (72) on the motion proposing the dates of each recess, we attach great importance to the opportunities for hon. Members to raise matters of concern to them in the daily Adjournment debate and in the whole-day Adjournment debate before each recess. The recommendation and the motion giving effect to it would not interfere with those opportunities.
However, as the Committee recognised, the motion proposing the date of an Adjournment is a technical matter and the debate arising from it has become a somewhat artificial occasion. I therefore commend the Committee's recommendation to the House, but I emphasise that what happens to it is entirely a matter for the House.

Mr. Roger Moate: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that the reference of a Private Member's Bill to a Second Reading Committee could be accepted only if the motion were unopposed. The motion on the Order Paper states only that the motion "shall be put forthwith". Can my right hon. Friend confirm that a Bill could not be referred to a Second Reading Committee if it were opposed by even one hon. Member?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is the intention and effect of the motion.
I acknowledge that recommendation (73), that debates on the Second Reading


of Consolidated Fund Bills should be referred to a Standing Committee, subject to the special arrangements indicated in paragraph 9.18 of the report, has much to commend it. Time would be saved on the Floor of the House. There would be no loss of opportunities for Members to press Ministers on matters of importance. More Members would have an opportunity to take part and the debate need lose none of its effectiveness through not being held on the Floor of the House.
On the other hand, if we are to have a new scheme, it needs to be worked out with care. The Consolidated Fund Bill is of immense importance to the House and we must consider the practical effect on the timetable for the passage of the Bill and on the detailed arrangements for sittings in Committee. We must also take account of any implications for the form of the debate at the Committee stage.
Perhaps even more important, the present arrangements are the result of a carefully considered and detailed report from a Procedure Committee which was accepted in 1966. That report followed a thorough study of Supply procedure as a whole and put forward a balanced set of recommendations which took account of all three main interests involved—those of Back Benchers, the Opposition and the Government. I put them in order of importance.
I do not think that we should disturb the results of those recommendations without an equally systematic study, going deeper than the recent Procedure Committee was able to go because it was covering such a wide area. The Committee expressed the view in chapter 8 of its report that the financial procedure required more thorough investigation and that it might be undertaken in due course by another Procedure Committee which should consider the handling of Consolidated Fund Bills in that context.
There is, I believe, strong support for the recommendation that Friday sittings should begin at 9.30 a.m., especially among hon. Members whose constituencies are at some distance from the capital. We commend it, accordingly, on the understanding that private notice questions and statements will continue to be taken at 11 o'clock. Any earlier time would require hon. Members to give notice

of their questions at an increasingly early hour. It would also present great difficulties for Ministers in giving adequate replies. The change, if accepted by the House, has important implications for the staff and services of the House. These will have to be considered with those concerned. If it is agreed in principle, as the motion proposes, the House authorities will prepare the new working arrangements and we would aim to bring them into operation during the new year.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I think that the enthusiasm, such as it is, for this motion is as much for the House rising at 3 p.m. as it is for its starting at 9.30 a.m. My right hon. Friend, perhaps by a slip of the tongue, mentioned only the commencing hour and not the terminal hour. It is important that an undertaking should be given that if this motion is passed the rule will not be suspended so that we end up merely starting at 9.30 a.m. but finishing at the same hour as under existing procedure.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think it was a slip of the tongue or even a slip of the mind. Being less ingenious than my hon. Friend, I had not thought that such a situation might be deduced. The hours are 9.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., followed by the Adjournment which would run from 2.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. That is what is intended.
The Procedure Committee has made two recommendations about the dates of recesses. The Committee does not propose any fundamental change in the pattern, but it has argued for the Easter Recess to be longer, if possible, than the Whitsun Recess, for Parliament to rise early for the Summer Recess and for a longer spill-over in the autumn. The committee has also recommended that the dates of the Christmas, Easter and Whit-sun Recesses should be fixed soon after the beginning of each Session.
I have not thought it right to include these matters in the terms of a motion, but I sympathise with much of the thought behind them. I have sought to meet the wishes of the House, and the spirit of those two recommendations, in the dates I have proposed so far in this Parliament. I recall that my efforts to get the House up at the end of July were not universally approved in public, although I received some consolation in the private gratitude


offered to me by hon. Members. I shall continue to act in this way in the future and try to take into account the interests of hon. Members, particularly those who have families with whom they wish to be reunited. I also know the particular problem of Scotland, where the school holidays commence earlier and end earlier than in England and Wales.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has passed over the question of notice of recesses in his comments. If an hon. Member wants to book a holiday, a hotel or an aircraft, with his family, he needs to have some notice of a period within the recess that the Government will try their best not to disturb, even though the full length of the recess may not be known.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I appreciate that difficulty. It is almost impossible for the Government to commit themselves to a rigid pattern. If they did, the length of the recesses would shrink. It would have to be the minimum period rather than the maximum. But I attempt, so far as I can, to give hon. Members guidance on this point within the perimeter of the obligation of the Government to get their business through the House.
The third group of motions on the Order Paper will enable the House to reach conclusions on the reports that have come from the Sessional Committees on Procedure in recent years. For many of them, the House may simply wish to take note of a recommendation that no change is needed or that a change has already been made by administrative action. I believe that the following matters fall into this category: the procedure for establishing the order for oral questions, the order of precedence for Private Members' business, the practice regarding motions to divide business at a stated time, the eligibility of hon. Members successful in ballots for Private Members' Bills to take part in subsequent ballots in the same Parliament, the designation of a single Clerk at the Table to receive amendments to the Bill on the day it receives a Second Reading.
The motions on the Order Paper will enable the House to express a formal view on these recommendations, but I do not expect that there will be any serious disagreement about them or any need for

prolonged discussion. The question of the method of raising points of order during a Division seems to have aroused a certain amount of controversy. I shall be interested to hear the views of hon. Members on that matter.
I can, however, assure the House, as the Procedure Committee wishes, that the practice of dividing business at 7 p.m. will be used sparingly and only after full consultation through the usual channels. I cannot commend to the House the proposal in the third report for Session 1975–76 that access to the Table Office should be confined to hon. Members and that hon. Members should be able to table only those questions that are in their own names. I am not aware of any serious difficulty over these matters. I am sure that the change, in practice, would amount to a considerable inconvenience to many hon. Members and also to their secretaries and assistants.
Our motions in this group would, however, have substantive effect on three matters. They would regularise the practice of calling an extra amendment at the end of the debate on the Address, as recommended in the first report for the Session 1976–77. This is important, particularly for the minority parties. Increasingly, the business tends to revolve around the axis of the Government and the official Opposition. The rights of minority parties should be respected as well.
The motions would implement the recommendation on the arangements for voting on Opposition motions on Supply days so that a vote could take place on the Opposition's own motion, as recommended in the third report for that Session. They would give effect to the recommendation in the sixth report which would generally prevent hon. Members raising matters under Standing Order No. 9 unless you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had already indicated that you would grant the application. These recommendations seem logical and correct. I commend them to the House.
I should like to give more background on the question of Opposition motions on Supply days—

Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling on the Opposition Benches that he is bringing forward the recommendation because it may assist the


Government to prevent critical speeches being made by hon. Members on the Opposition side in explaining the reason for an emergency debate? Is it necessary so to change our business that one has to go to Mr. Speaker to get his permission? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain whether Mr. Speaker will be giving permission for the matter to be raised or giving his consent to the emergency debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answers that point may I correct what was perhaps a slip of the tongue? Mr. Speaker, and not Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be responsible for granting Standing Order No. 9 applications.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was subsuming Mr. Speaker into Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should obviously have been the other way around. I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is making. I hope that he will not be too suspicious of the motives of the Government. I have no desire to deprive any Member of the House of any opportunity to raise anything. But the Committee reached the considered conclusion that what had been intended as a means of raising an emergency matter had become a subject of abuse and was being used for other purposes. Its recommendation is that it would not be possible to raise the matter in this House unless Mr. Speaker had reached a positive and affirmative decision. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point.
I should like to go further into the background of Opposition motions on Supply days. Under our present arrangements, the Opposition have the right to put down a motion on a Supply day, and the Government have a right to put down an amendment. Until 1966, the motion was put to the House in the form
That the words proposed to be left out stand part".
Apparently that caused some confusion in people's minds. It was therefore recommended in 1967, and indeed was achieved, that instead of the phrase
That the words proposed to be left out stand part
the phrase should be used
That the amendment be made".

That applies of course to motions generally, but the effect on Government amendments on Opposition Supply days was overlooked. It was not realised that the change gave the Opposition no chance to vote on their own motion, because the vote would always take place on the Government amendment and that would be the end of the Opposition's opportunity. It is therefore proposed by the Committee which was set up in 1976 that the words should now be changed to
That the original words stand part of the Question
and that the vote should be taken on that.
When I was Shadow Leader of the House, I argued strongly for a change in that respect. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was then the Opposition Chief Whip, supported that also in a letter to the Sessional Committee on Procedure, and it was opposed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
What suits an Opposition does not always suit a Government. At times, when the Opposition are turned into the Government, they are not so enthusiastic about the reforms which they had embraced while wandering in the wilderness. That change of attitude has caused some political cynicism among those who survey our processes from a distance. It was perhaps best summed up in the quatrain "On a Great Election" by Belloc:
The accursed power which stands on Privilege
(And goes with Women, and Champagne, and Bridge)
Broke—and Democracy resumed her reign: (Which goes with Bridge, and Women and Champagne).
This change does not suit the Government. It does suit the Opposition. Nevertheless, we tabled it because we believe that it is right for the House and for parliamentary democracy as a whole that the Opposition, although in a minority, should be able to vote for their own motions. I hope that this generosity of spirit will be noted by the Opposition when any other little local difficulties may occur.
This is a serious point, because the Opposition may be in a minority Parliament and the actual phrasing of the motion could be of vital importance. The motion gives back to the Opposition a


right which should not have been taken from them.
Our motions finally invite the House to take note of the report on questions to the Prime Minister. Hon. Members will be aware that since taking office my right hon. Friend has consistently acted in accordance with the first part of the recommendation—namely, that the Prime Minister should, at discretion, retain more questions falling strictly within the responsibility of departmental Ministers if important policy issues are involved.
However, it takes two to tango. I hope that hon. Members will be equally diligent in observing the second part of the recommendation, that they should table fewer device or indirect questions. A partnership is needed. The shortcoming of the present system is that the form of question which is being put down facilitates the kind of gladiatorial contest, the "yah-boo" politics, which is so unpopular in the country. If one could get away from that form, it would be good for politics and good for the House. We also invite Mr. Speaker to take into account the recommendations about the enforcement of stricter rules of relevance on supplementaries arising from such questions.
These motions will allow useful progress to be made on a number of matters which affect the efficient working of the House and the convenience of hon. Members. However, there remain important sections of the Procedure Committee's main report which the House must still consider—those on the Public Bill procedure, on delegated legislation and on European Communities legislation.
It is our intention to provide for debate on those questions and also on the recommendations on financial control when the review of the Exchequer and Audit Department which I announced on 25 June has been completed. That might be the time to consider the investigation of the financial procedure to which I have already referred.
The Government fully sympathise with the objectives of more effective parliamentary scrutiny and better opportunities for Back Benchers to take part in debates which lie behind all these recommendations, but they are of more than

procedural significance. If they were to be adopted in full, they would present difficulty not only for the Government but for the House itself. Also, it would be unfair to ask new Members to come to conclusions before they had had an opportunity to gain experience of the working of present arrangements. In any event, many of them are recommendations which, if adopted, would most conveniently come into effect at the beginning of a new Session.
Therefore, I hope that the House will agree that it is better not to reach immediate conclusions on these recommendations at this stage, but, as the present Session proceeds, I intend to hold full discussions with interested individuals and parliamentary groups and with my Cabinet colleagues with a view to a further debate on procedure during the summer.
I turn now to the motions to set up a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The House made clear in the summer its wish to have a Committee on Scottish affairs equivalent to the Committees which it agreed to set up to match the principal Whitehall Departments and the Welsh Office. The Government are keen to make improvements in the government of Scotland, especially in the procedures for handling Scottish parliamentary business. I have written to the representatives of the political parties which have Members for Scottish constituencies, proposing all-party talks with that objective.
I was further pressed in June to agree that the establishment of a Committee on Scottish affairs should not await the outcome of these talks. The motions are intended to meet what I believe to be the wishes of the House in the meantime. They therefore provide for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs with similar membership and orders of reference to those of the other Committees which the House has already agreed should be established.
If all-party talks suggest that a larger number or wider functions are needed in the Scottish Committee or that the Committee should have power to appoint a Sub-Committee, the Government will be ready to table further motions at the appropriate time. However, we do not want to anticipate the outcome of those talks in the discussion of today's motion.
I have been presenting proposals which are not primarily the concern of party. They are not party matters. They are of concern for the House as a whole. I hope that I have done so in a non-partisan way. It is, after all, a suitable way to proceed, and I am conscious that my title is Leader of the House. While you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the servant of the House, and I share some of those characteristics, I am not above the party battle. I am frequently in the front line. It is certainly part of my duty to see that Government business gets through the House. I have to see that the legislation which has a clear mandate from the electorate is brought forward. I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will not be deflected from that course.
But I realise that this process has to be pursued in a context in which all parties have their rights. The measures that I have proposed today will, I believe, increase the effectiveness of all hon. Members. It is in that spirit that I commend them to the House.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what he said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and I shall bring it to his notice. My hon. Friends and I are also grateful that representations were heeded about the re-ordering of the Order Paper. I hope that it will assist all right hon. and hon. Members in their discussions this evening.
For the second time this Session, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out—and he has promised another bite at the cherry later—we are debating the procedures of the House. I note what he said about Select Committees, Liaison Committees and Sub-Committees as part of the "continuing" discussions which will have to take place. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Select Committee. There are implications concerning that Committee, with which I do not propose to deal. But I hope that my right hon. Friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He will deal with that aspect and I shall shorten my remarks accordingly.
I have listened with interest to the Leader of the House, and I shall simply

make one or two remarks of recommendation to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I do not propose to deal with all the matters on the Order Paper which enable right hon. and hon. Members to control and check the Executive. There are matters on which it is quite proper for individual Members to make up their own minds. I shall simply raise those which I feel are of general interest to my hon. Friends—and perhaps also to Conservative Members.
It is recommended that there should be changes in the Standing Order No. 9 procedure, that the emergency procedure should be abolished, and that applications should be made to Mr. Speaker in the same manner as for private notice questions. I believe that Standing Order No. 9 was abused last winter. I was a Minister then. I have no doubt that what we were told in the debate on that occasion played no part in the discussions I had in the emergency committees. I do not pretend that I learnt anything from it. A discussion took place on the Floor of the House purely for an ulterior reason. Perhaps some hon. Members consider that what happened was right. However, I am not arguing that, as a result, the Standing Order No. 9 procedure should be abolished. We must be tolerant. Standing Order No. 9 provides an important power for Back Bench Members, enabling them to act against the wishes of both Front Benches. That is a healthy procedure and I recommend that we should not alter it. I feel, however, that, as with the Ten-Minute Bill this afternoon, if the procedure is consistently abused Procedure Committees will be forced to recommend changes and hon. Members on both sides will support them. My advice is to leave the Standing Order No. 9 procedure alone.

Mr. Peter Emery: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the matter which was considered fully by the Procedure Committee, which was that pressure was being placed on Mr. Speaker in that if he rejected a private notice question application an hon. Member could demand that he raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9? Mr. Speaker does not have to give a reason for refusing a private notice question, so it was suggested that if it were refused the House should resort to the private


notice question procedure for a Standing Order No. 9 application. The Committee considered that it was wrong for pressure to be put on the Chair and believed the Chair to be a good interpreter of what was of great importance. However, although that was considered to be wrong it was not out of order.

Mr. Rees: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment on this and other matters. He is extremely fair. However, whatever the situation, I believe that this issue is best left alone. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not abuse the system. It provides them with an important power that they should not lightly give up.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be very wise therefore for Conservative Back Benchers to vote against this proposal tonight, or to refrain from supporting it, on the ground that when they become the Opposition they will want to use or abuse the power as the case may be? Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change in the procedure as recommended by the Leader of the House would lead to more points of order? If an hon. Member cannot get his point across by way of a Standing Order No. 9 application he will use any opportunity, obviously including points of order, to make his case.

Mr. Rees: I think that that is right. Last winter was a case in point. Ministers tried to make a statement every day to give hon. Members on both sides a chance to raise important matters. Sometimes those statements were pretty thin because there had been little change from the day before. However, the object was to give hon. Members the chance to raise issues on the Floor of the House. My view, therefore, is that we should leave this matter alone.
Another proposal is that the date of recesses should not be debatable. However, that would take away from hon. Members the chance to raise grievances in the traditional debate that we hold before the House goes into recess. I do not believe, as the Procedure Committee suggests, that these procedures are technical. It would be wrong to remove from Back Benchers the chance legitimately to raise issues which may be current at the time or which may arise during the

recess. As with the proposal for the Standing Order No. 9 debate, I do not support this proposal. I recommend accordingly to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Would he care to comment on the argument of the Leader of the House that Back Benchers would still have opportunities to press Ministers on matters that concerned them? Surely, if we were about to adjourn for a recess it would not be possible to do that.

Mr. Rees: I think that that is right as well. We all know that in such debates we raise issues which are of national and often great regional or local concern. Hon. Members use the debate to get issues published in local newspapers so that people may consider them.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that the debate takes on a farcical element when the Chair is unable to find anyone who will speak in favour of the recess but at the end of the debate can find no one to vote against it?

Mr. Rees: No doubt that has happened many times, but the debate is simply a device to get a discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be seized of this point. My right hon. Friend said that hon. Members would have adequate opportunity of raising matters if they applied for one of the end-of-Session Adjournment debates. However, they are limited in number and one has to take one's chance in Mr. Speaker's selection. Under the present procedure, any hon. Member who wishes to make a point has the chance to do so because the Government cannot proceed to put the Question until all those wishing to speak have done so.

Mr. Rees: That is a most important point, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
I come next to the timing of the recesses and the concern that was expressed about their relationship to school holidays. I do not agree with the amendment—although that is a personal matter. My children are no longer young. They do their own thing. But when I look back at


my time in the House—although we all make our own decision to be here, as the newspapers frequently point out—the thing that I regret most in the past 17 years has been the trouble I have had in taking holidays with my family. I sympathise greatly with the spirit of what was said, and I hope that something will be done about that.
I have doubts about the proposal concerning short speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has tabled an amendment, and I believe that that has the right idea. If on some occasion—it may be on a Second Reading debate—Mr. Speaker feels that he should call for short speeches, I believe that that could be achieved by way of a gentleman's agreement. That would be preferable to tying hon. Members down by precise procedure of the House. It would have other effects. I have spoken with some of my hon. Friends about this matter in the past day or two. This would be a Second Reading occasion. Perhaps it could be extended to other occasions if there are large numbers of speakers. I have learnt that there are occasions in the House of Commons when, if an hon. Member on either side of the House is in disagreement with his party, it is worth allowing him to speak longer than anybody else. That draws people into the Chamber. Nevertheless I agree that short speeches are important on some occasions. Indeed, I am endeavouring to make one now.
I agree with the new hours on Friday and the Friday procedure. The Leader of the House was not quite so forthcoming about that matter. I do not blame him. It was pointed out that the sitting could be exended on a Government business day and for other reasons. I am sure that that will happen.
There is a tendency to take the Northern Ireland business on a Friday. The Labour Government were as guilty of that as the Tories. I know that the Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland, who want extended business, grasp at the opportunity of having it on Friday. The Northern Ireland business is important. There may be other Government business on a Friday. I should like to see the Northern Ireland business taken when Members representing the remainder of the United Kingdom are here and not left

to Northern Ireland Members when the rest of us have gone home.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: To put the record absolutely straight, the position of my hon. Friends and myself was not that we wished to have Northern Ireland business on Fridays—God forbid—but that when Northern Ireland business had to be on a Friday, and a substantial number of separate items were put down, there should be no restriction on time, since that would be our only legislative opportunity. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands that. However, I do not want him to get away with the notion that we were devotees of Fridays. We, like him, believe that Northern Ireland business should be taken, like any other business, at a time when hon. Members are likely to be able to attend and listen.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am wondering whether the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) misunderstood my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I understood that my right hon. Friend gave a definitive undertaking that the bringing forward of the hour of sitting to 9.30 a.m. would not be followed by suspending the hour of rising so that we ended up where we were before.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my intervening in the interruptions to his speech. Perhaps I could give a definitive statement of my position at the end of the debate.

Mr. Rees: Some of us know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman will say at that time.
The amendment of Standing Order No. 66 would allow Bills to be sent to a Second Reading Committee on Friday. Eventually they must come back to the Floor of the House. I am not so sure about that point. I shall listen carefully to the debate. According to the way in which the motion is written, an hon. Member with a non-contentious Bill early in the list will have it taken on the Floor of the House on Friday anyway. Difficulties arise only when a Bill is lower down the list. There might be some jiggery-pokery on a Friday which would enable some Bills to move much more quickly than others. I think that the intention behind the proposal is right. I see what is


involved. However, I have my doubts about it.
It is right to allow the experiment of a further amendment by a third party to the Loyal Address. I also agree with the procedure on Opposition Supply days.
The Leader of the House referred to the headgear worn when raising points of order during a Division. He said that raised a certain amount of emotion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I fully support the traditions of the House. They matter. However, having people sitting here with a top hat on, looking like Harry Tate in the 1930s, is not the best way of supporting such traditions. We could maintain our traditions in a much more proper way. I support the idea put forward by my hon. Friend.
I now refer to Prime Minister's questions. The Leader of the House made the point that hon. Members could help in asking fewer indirect questions. I am sure that this is right. I liked his homily about yah-boo politics. Saatchi and Saatchi, thou shouldst be living at this hour that that should be said so soon after a general election.
There will be much discussion on these matters. There has been much discussion of them among Labour Back Benchers. I have given advice on only two matters.
I intended to remain all evening to listen to the debate. However, for the next half hour I must attend a meeting for which I am now late. I hope that the House will understand. I shall be here to listen after that. There will be a free vote, and we shall make decisions that will render the procedures of this House far more efficacious.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I should like to concentrate on the question of short speeches. I know a little about the matter. I do not think much of the motion, mainly because I do not think that it goes nearly far enough. It does not go anywhere near the heart of the problem, which is to stop long speeches being made before 7 o'clock—not to make them compulsory between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.
We all know the facts, one of which is that Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House go on for too long. More important, hon. Members who are called early in a debate do tend to abuse that preferential position—whether they are Privy Councillors, or whether they think they should be Privy Councillors or whether they think they should be Ministers. We all remember occasions when they have bombed on for 30, 40 or 50 minutes at a time. We all know the result.
The remedy does not lie in changing the rules of procedure. It lies in strengthening the arm of the Chair. I should like the House to endorse some of the unofficial arrangements which the Chair has been known to make.
I should like it to be generally agreed that when an hon. Member promises to make a short speech, and can be relied upon to fulfil the promise, he should have priority well before 7 o'clock. I should like the House to endorse the rule that, if an hon. Member speaks for less than eight minutes, that does not count against his ration. I go further. When an hon. Member rabbits on for 30 minutes or more, that should count double. He should lose all priority the next time round, and the Chair should at once balance matters by calling two successive speakers from the opposite side of the House. That message might get home fairly soon.
If we do not do that, Onslow's law, —that speeches expand to fill the time available for their completion—will prevail. If we do not tackle the problem in the way that I have suggested, we must move to radical solutions. I put one to the House. Let us suppose that when a question is proposed, if 40 Members rise in their places there may be a vote at once for the benefit of those who do not want to hear the arguments. If that vote leaves the matter to be decided, there may be a debate for those who still feel impelled to speak. At the end of the proceedings there will be a second vote. That may be added up and the result determined. That may seem convoluted, but it would at least allow some of us to get away earlier than at present.
I want to leave three practical thoughts in the minds of those of my colleagues who recognise the description of themselves as long-winded. First, we know


that Hansard has to print every word they say. But no local or daily paper will ever print more than five minutes of speaking time. The column inches are just not available. The only way to have a long speech reported at full length in the press is to be like the President of North Korea and take a full-page advertisement. I am sometimes tempted to commend some of my right hon. Friends to do just that.
Next, the longer the speech an hon. Member makes, the less chance he has that the radio or the press will pick out the parts which he thinks are important. He simply lengthens the odds against himself, which is a pretty silly thing to do.
Finally, short speeches, like short letters, take time to prepare. We all knew that. However busy we may be, if we do not have sufficient consideration for our own colleagues to devote some of our own time to shortening our speeches, why the devil should we expect them to sit here and suffer?

6 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wish to follow the brief do-it-yourself exercise in procedure of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) by referring to the motion on the Order Paper regarding length of speeches. I wish also to allude very briefly to the two matters in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in disagreement with Committee recommendations. It would be churlish, however, if one did not, at the outset, recognise that the House is indebted to the Leader of the House for having cleared the backlog of recommendations from the Sessional Committees that had accumulated. It was becoming something of a scandal that no fewer than 10 separate recommendations—for which the House itself had asked Sessional Committees—had not received attention. It is admirable that the Leader of the House should have given the House the opportunity of disposing of those recommendations this afternoon.
On the matter of the regulation of length of speeches, those who read Committee reports from the back forwards will be aware that this recommendation of the Select Committee was not unanimous, though it had a majority in the ratio of two to one. I do not believe myself that regulation by Standing Order,

even by permissive Standing Order, or the introduction of the notion of an allowance against the clock for Members' speeches, is the right way to approach the problem. On the contrary, I believe that characteristics of the Chamber which are vital characteristics could be severely damaged if we allowed ourselves to enter upon a course which might lead to the artificial regulation of speeches by time.
There are only two methods of regulating the length of speeches that are consistent with the individual responsibility of hon. Members. Those two methods, working in co-operation, are, first, the public opinion of the House—which has a way of making itself felt even to the more obtuse—and, secondly, that extraordinary skill not only of the present but of former occupants of the Chair in bringing pressure to bear upon the formation and tempo of a debate as it proceeds.
The operation of those two forces together produces a more economical use of time than would result from the sort of experiment that is in motion 1 before the House. On that experiment we could find that speeches that would have been shorter than 10 minutes were elongated to fill 10 minutes, and that a series of some 10 or a dozen 10-minute speeches were substituted for a series of speeches of varying length which would have made a more effective contribution to the debate.
After all, it is part of the liberties of a Member of the House, if he deems it right and necessary, to treat the House to a long discourse, doing so against the sanction that his opportunities to repeat the performance may be considerably limited, and the consideration indicated by the hon. Member for Woking that the effect of a long speech may be less than the effect of a short speech.
All that said, I believe that we shall be unwise to proceed to any form of regulation but will best sustain the true spirit of the House by leaving this matter to the unseen but effective regulation to which it is at present subject.
I turn to the two matters in which the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and other hon. Members were at odds with the recommendations of the respective Committees. The question of Standing Order No. 9 motions is a matter on which I hope


that, in a debate of this sort, it may be possible—as happens in a Select Committee—for hon. Members to allow themselves to reconsider and possibly be persuaded to alter a point of view which they had taken up. If a proposal with regard to Standing Order No. 9 was designed or likely to have the effect of limiting opportunities for criticising the Government and bringing the Government to book, I would not have supported it in the Sessional Committee, and I would not argue in favour of it today; but I do not believe that the proposal to which the House is invited to assent would in any way have the effect of limiting opportunities for hon. Members to criticise Government.
I believe that the actual effects would be twofold. First, it would restore fairness as between hon. Members, which is damaged at present by the form of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Secondly, it would put an end to undoubted abuse.
We already accept that it shall lie in Mr. Speaker's hands whether an hon. Member has the opportunity to ask a question of a Minister by private notice. I have never heard it suggested that Mr. Speaker, in deciding whether or not to give that permission, is actuated by desire to shield the Government from inquiry, and I see no reason to suppose that if his judgment were applied in advance to the appropriateness of a matter to be raised under Standing Order No. 9, he would be any more swayed by a desire to assist the Government. There would be the same impartiality from the Chair in the one case as we have in the other.
On the other hand, we should remove an anomaly, indeed, an absurdity. At present, if one applies to Mr. Speaker to ask a private notice question, should he decline it, one is not allowed to refer publicly or in the House thereafter to the fact that such an application has been made. That rule is sometimes broken but it is far more often observed. It is indeed a necessary rule of the House. In contrast, every hon. Member has the opportunity, if he is prepared to take it—even when he knows that there is not the slightest chance of the matter which he proposes for debate getting the assent of Mr. Speaker under Standing Order No. 9—to make a speech of varying length upon a

topic of his choice. Where the unfairness as well as the abuse comes in is that there are often subjects that are equally exercising many other hon. Members and where one Member as much as another is concerned about it and doing his best to bring the matter to public attention or to secure a remedy in other ways.
It is grossly unfair that by deliberately abusing the Standing Order No. 9 procedure one hon. Member should be able to secure an airing for the presentation of what is often a grossly partial point of view that can never be corrected in debate, and also scoop the publicity for it, so far as that may be of importance. The present procedure is abusive, it is unfair as between Member and Member, and it is inconsistent with the procedure on private notice questions, which, so far as I know, gives no room for criticism.
I hope therefore that those who at first blush have been disposed not to agree with the recommendation of the Sessional Committee on Standing Order No. 9 will be willing to reconsider.
Another matter that has been referred to is the motion for the recess. Admittedly, this is an occasion when hon. Members exercise the right not of "grievance before supply" but of "grievance before holiday", in raising matters under the patently transparent pretext that they do not wish the House to rise. I do not think that the transparency of the pretext is a case against that procedure; for many of our procedures, which are prefectly practical and efficient, are built upon a fiction: that is well understood. I should not found upon that the case in favour of the Sessional Committee's report.
The case in favour of the recommendation is that these debates are inherently futile. Instead of doing what in the House we normally seek to do by debate—namely, bring the responsible Minister to the Dispatch Box to answer questions put to him—we all know perfectly well what happens in fact. It is done with varying skill by different Leaders of the House. For it is the Leader of this House alone who replies in emollient phrases in which we recognise the very tones of the responsible Minister whom we are really criticising, trotted out second hand in circumstances where there is no possibility of proceeding with debate.
The procedure is a waste of the time of the House, which could better be used for genuine debate and genuine challenging of Ministers. I hope therefore that those who feel they would be losing a useful opportunity will realise it is not an efficient or effective opportunity, and that we could use the time better in other ways.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in a debate on such matters. The right hon. Gentleman has great knowledge of these matters and his views are much respected in the House. I had the privilege of sitting with him on the Sessional Committee on procedure. I shall comment on one of the matters that he has raised that was before the Committee.
There have been arguments for and against short speeches. I was an Opposition Whip for the best part of four years. For hour after hour I sat on the Opposition Front Bench. I was unable to intervene. I was unable even to make a seated interjection to relieve the boredom. It was a time when the iron entered my soul against long speeches. It was a change to see a different face and a different mouth talking. Therefore, I support the move to have a period of short speeches in Second Reading debates as an experiment.
The experiment will be far from easy to conduct. It will throw a great burden on the Chair. For example, we shall have to cope with interruptions and the raising of points of order that crop up within the 10 minutes. There will be great difficulties. Having considered all the factors, I believe that the time has come to try the experiment.
It is my opinion that some hon. Members are obtuse. Even the emptying of the Chamber is not enough to stop them making long speeches. If a speech is going on for too long, the natural consequence is for interest to be lost and for hon. Members to leave the Chamber in droves. That cannot be good for the House. If I were with the right hon. Member for Down, South in his interpretation of the feelings of hon. Members towards those being criticised for making long speeches, I should be much more inclined to vote with him.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposed change of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. I was a member of the Sessional Committee and I had reservations about the proposal when it was considered by the Committee. I voted for an amendment that was defeated. I still feel that the ability to raise an issue under Standing Order No. 9 is not one with which we should interfere lightly. The procedure has been abused. There are few procedures of the House that are not abused. It is the extent of the abuse that we must consider. I believe that the time has not yet come to equate the Standing Order No. 9 procedure with that of a private notice question. It is very much a Back-Bench issue.
It may be that the right hon. Gentleman's argument applies when the House is full, when the House may make its own feelings about an abuse patent to the guilty Member there and then. That is one way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right of the individual Member is not to raise a matter under Standing Order No. 9—that right lies with Mr. Speaker and the House—but to ask whether he may put forward a request to do so? That is a very different matter. The exercise of that right in private is no invalidation of the right.

Mr. Clegg: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am well aware that it is the right of an individual Member merely to make an application. He does not have the right to introduce a debate. When an hon. Member uses the Standing Order No. 9 procedure, his speech should be short. Indeed, such speeches must be within the rules of Standing Order No. 9. The issue cannot be debated within the application. It is for Mr. Speaker to deal with any abuse of the procedure.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not the abuse, so-called, precisely what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is describing? It is recognised that, to be able to raise a matter that is an emergency, it is necessary to talk about the merits of the case rather than to apply for a debate in which to discuss the merits. We need a slot in the day when hon. Members may raise a matter


that is an emergency to them, and to do it by leave of the House. In that way an issue can be aired quickly. All the other procedures, such as Ten-Minute Bills and Adjournment debates, are now so overloaded that we have to wait months before we may use them. We need a slot for emergencies, and the Standing Order No. 9 procedure is about the only one left to us.

Mr. Clegg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is that which operates on my thinking. Modern methods of communication mean that matters come quickly to the notice of hon. Members. It is understandable that hon. Members feel that certain issues should be debated urgently in preference to other business. At this stage I should not seek to remove the Standing Order No. 9 slot. However, I am convinced that if it is abused for much longer the demand for the procedure that is set out in the Order Paper will be extremely strong.
I turn, finally, to a procedure that causes amusement. It is one of the many matters that we considered during sittings of the Sessional Committee. I refer to the wearing of headgear while raising a point of order during a Division. When I first came to the House I thought that the procedure was quaint. However, when I heard some of the reasons for the wearing of some form of headgear it became apparent to me that there was some sense in the custom. As we all know, once a Division is called hon. Members move around the Chamber. They stand up. If someone rises to make a point of order, it is difficult for the occupant of the Chair to respond because the hon. Member making the point of order may be obscured by those passing in front of him. The evidence suggests that it is easier for the Chair to spot someone sitting down and wearing a hat.
The proposal to which we gave our minds—it was a matter of great moment—was that two hats should be available. It was suggested that there should be one hat at each end of the Chamber. It was argued that that would save much of the present farce. There are practical reasons lying behind some of our old customs, and I for one would not like to see the seated and covered procedure abolished.
On the whole some good changes have been proposed. I am pleased that we shall allow the Opposition on a Supply Day to vote on their own motion. It was intolerable that that right was taken away from them in the first place. I am glad to see it back.

6.20 p.m.

Sir Thomas Williams: May I first thank the Leader of the House for his kind references to me. The House must feel indebted to him both for the open-mindedness of the response he has given to the recommendations of the Select Committee on procedure and for his forthrightness in accepting some of them and presenting them to the House for approval even though rejecting others.
I noted and heard with interest the recommendations that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted and those that he passed by on the other side. To some of those that he left unnoticed I wish he had given further consideration and asked for our approval, notably the proposal that we should set up a Public Bill Committee in place of our present Standing Committees. However, we are grateful for the recommendations to which he has given his blessing. They are steps in the right direction.
I have read the reports of the Select Committee and the Sessional Committees, and for the most part I approve of them. The House will, I think, not be surprised if I say that I intend to limit my comments to the proposals of the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman. I restrict myself to those, not only because I might be expected to welcome the wisdom of its recommendations, but also because it recommended some serious changes. The Sessional Committees, on the other hand, see almost no need for change and recommend little alteration in any of the procedures sent for their examination. In respect of the one on which they do propose a major change, that of Standing Order No. 9, I am "agin" it.
I do not want to change—even those changes recommended by my Committee—for the sake of change. I am confident that the Select Committee was right to conclude—and the Leader of the House right to accept its conclusions—that some changes were necessary, especially since


the changes it proposes are evolutionary and not revolutionary. For that reason, they are more likely to find acceptance even in this predominantly conservative institution. I hasten to say that I use the word "conservative" in its traditional or conservative sense, not in its political or pejorative sense.
The Select Committee approached its task with two primary concerns. The first was to add to the usefulness of the Commons in the government of Britain. The second was to try, as far as possible, to preserve the sanity of Members of Parliament. There can be no doubt that our usefulness would be much greater if there were greater disciplines in our procedures and a good deal less indiscipline in the making of speeches by hon. Members who either have nothing to say or who say what they must at far too great length.
It is for that reason that I would, in spite of some of the criticisms that have been made, urge the House to accept the proposal in para. 2.9 of the report, that speeches, if only for a limited time in the evening, should be made mandatorily shorter. At least, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that would enable the Chair to prevent an hon. Member from continuing to bore who has not struck oil in 10 minutes.
It may be that at some time we shall, if we start from there, be bold enough—as Mr. Speaker has been from time to time—to end the unjustifiable privilege enjoyed by hon. Members who are called before 7 o'clock. They too often use that opportunity to frustrate their less privileged colleagues not only by pre-empting them from speaking but by compelling them instead to listen to speeches that their colleagues at least regard as of massive irrelevance and delivered at inordinate length.
The recommendation is a good starting point. It points in the right direction and, though I sympathise with hon. Members who want more excellent ways of achieving excellence, I urge them, even if they do not like what has been done, not to prevent the experiment from taking place. Let them give time a chance to soften the hard-line resisters to all change. I beg, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you, from your historic seat in the Chair, will be bold enough, if the chance is given to you, to seize time by the forelock. The Select

Committee is surely right to suppose that the Commons could become more of a workshop and less of a spectacle if the many ways in which our procedures are now abused might be better used. In this context the Committee has been bolder in making recommendations than the Leader of the House has been in accepting them. Perhaps he is wise to make haste slowly. There is, however, no doubt of his wisdom in inviting the House to accept that legislation is not necessarily better because it has been discussed ad nauseam ad infinitum.
Before he escaped from what he clearly thought was the tedium of the Commons, Lord Glenamara thought that most Second Readings were too long and some were wholly unnecessary. Out of his objections came the Second Reading Committee procedures.
Now, the Leader of the House would have us extend the procedure to Private Members' Bills, although he has hedged that proposal about with many a barrier. Even so, I welcome the boldness of his advance so far and look hopefully for the success of this experiment. I believe that by a wider use of the Second Reading Committee procedure we could save a great deal of time and make it available for the Commons to scrutinise what the Government are up to.
There will, however, be little advantage in saving time by procedural changes if that time is still to be wasted in procedural frivolity. My Committee spent many hours discussing how the House could best confound Government cunning without at the same time hurting the nation or hamstringing the Opposition. None of us was unconscious of the perils, and the abuses, which bring Parliament into disrepute, when it is our real duty to use well the time that an expectant electorate has given to us.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, because he is dealing with the question of saving our time. Does he recall that the Select Committee of which he was Chairman made an interesting suggestion for a re-run of procedures in Committee upstairs of relatively small points on which assurances had been given but where a record of those assurances was required to save time at a subsequent


Report stage? Would it not be interesting to hear why the Leader of the House did not accept that suggestion?

Sir T. Williams: It is clear that the Leader of the House has set his mind against changes which he believes should be given further consideration, including the setting up of a new form of Standing Committee. For that reason I did not raise the issue.
Few hon. Members will not be aware, whether or not they admit it, that the opportunities given to us by our procedures, even for the redress of grievances, have often been the occasions of the greatest abuses of all. Hon. Members will find it profitable to read again chapter 9 of the Select Committee report.
One does not have to sit in the Chair of this honourable House to share the frustration that its occupant and the Whips must often feel at the seemingly endless, frivolous and phoney points of order that grown men who should have left them behind with their school caps have used as devices for the prevention of business that they do not like. Surely it is altogether good that the proposals in chapter 9.16, which the Leader of the House suggests we should adopt, should at least be tried, for they could provide us with some tightening up of the discipline of our procedures and the beginning of a return to the purposes for which technical procedures were intended originally.
There are many reasons why it is necessary to underline, as the Committee sought to do, that motions on the recess, Consolidated Fund Bills—and even Supply days in due course—should be returned to the object for which they were originally intended.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: To which of the two old original purposes is the hon. and learned Member referring? Does he suggest that Supply days should be used more for the controlling of Supply or to redress a grievance before granting Supply?

Sir T. Williams: Supply days have long since lost the purpose either of controlling the Government or redressing grievances. They are often used by the Opposition merely to table a motion on almost any topic, often totally unrelated

to Supply. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) may find it useful to read what is said in the report about Supply days.
In comparison with these weighty matters, hon. Members may believe that the last topic to which I shall refer is of little importance. However, I refer to Friday sittings. I hope that the Leader of the House will not resile from the generous suggestion that he seemed to make earlier today. Friday sittings, especially for hon. Members who have constituencies outside London, are often a snare and a conundrum.
The demands of the House continue to grow. They threaten to grow even larger. From being a part-time occupation, membership of Parliament has become a full-time job and threatens to become all-embracing. I was tempted to say "totalitarian" but I am sure that that would be misunderstood. Our constituents complain and, when they do not, our famililies do that they see us too seldom.
Friday sessions finishing shortly after lunch would give us the chance to remember that there are other places, other duties and other people than the hon. Members with whom we live and move for almost all the hours that God gives us between Monday morning and Thursday midnight—and sometimes later. Perhaps one "short" day will teach us that much can be done in reasonable time, during reasonable hours, by reasonable men who put their minds as well as their backs into their work.
I commend the recommendations to the House. I hope that we shall approve them, and, more important, I hope that we shall apply them, every one.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), I am unhappy about the suggestions that we should change the hours of sitting on a Friday. The House had an unfortunate and unhappy experience under the leadership of the late Mr. Crossman when we changed the hours of sitting. Those arrangements were rapidly brought to an end after an experimental period. If we did change the sitting we should still continue debating until 4 o'clock, because of the nature of our business.
If business on a Friday closed at 2.30 p.m. it would be easier for hon. Members to achieve the closure of a debate. Some of us do not want the Private Members' Bill procedure to be made easier. The difficulty involved in succeeding with a closure at 4 o'clock is a legitimate democratic hurdle, which Members should be able to jump. If there is sufficient support for a Bill an hon. Member should be able to persuade a sufficient number of hon. Members to appear at 4 o'clock.
I remember a famous Bill which failed to make progress because it did not achieve the closure at 4 o'clock. There is grave doubt whether controversial proposals should be contained in Private Members' Bills. Proper facilities are not available for consultations on proposals that could involve taking away minority rights. It would be dangerous for us to make it any easier for such matters to proceed to the statute book. I am certain that allowing a closure to be moved at 2.30 p.m., before hon. Members have left for their constituencies, would make it easier for Private Members' Bills to succeed.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say that he is in favour of giving private Members more time, more powers, more facilities and opportunities. If he pursues that argument I hope that he will accept that if more time is given to private Members' business we must also consider restoring the devices for frustrating private Members' proceedings.
It was a great mistake for the House to give up the count on Fridays. We often got away by 2.30 p.m. on a Friday when, by general agreement, everybody was fed up with the legislation then before us and did not want to see it make progress. If we are to make it easier for Members to get their business in on a Friday we should look again at the possibility of counting the House out.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pointed out the danger of Standing Order No. 37 Bills—ballot place Bills—drawn low down in the list with no possibility of getting a Second Reading debate in the first seven Fridays, as in this Session, being withdrawn from the remaining stages days and sent upstairs to Standing Committee. I absolutely agree that this is open to tremendous manoeuvring. If we are not careful we will find ourselves with the remaining

stages Fridays and very little, if any, legislation having been disgorged from Standing Committees, and there will be a void. There is nothing more dangerous or frustrating than having a void. Hon. Members will not go away: they will merely take up less desirable occupations.
I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that one objection will be sufficient to stop a Standing Order No. 37 Bill from going upstairs. As I understand the motion tabled by the Leader of the House, after a Bill has had a Second Reading in Committee upstairs, one objection can stop it proceeding further when it returns to the Floor of the House. But can we stop a Bill from going upstairs with one objection? If not, we shall find that the remaining stages Fridays will be empty.
I do not see the need to give any more time to an hon. Member who introduces a Ten-Minute Bill. If one introduces a Ten-Minute Bill, irrespective of what is happening, one is given the peak time of the House in which to make a speech, anyway. Why it is necessary to fall over backwards to ensure that those who have already pinched the peak time of 3.50 p.m. should get two and a half hours for a Second Reading debate on a Bill which we know will not get any further, I do not know. It seems to be a waste of the time of those hon. Members who will sit on the Second Reading Committee of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) makes an assertion that is not always correct. Ten-Minute Bills sometimes do pass through all their stages. I piloted a Bill through the House under the Ten Minutes Rule to enlarge the powers of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that.

Mr. Kimball: If my memory serves me correctly the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) slipped that Bill behind the Chair and did not make a speech about it, which is a very justifiable way of proceeding and a way in which we can always proceed.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recollect that I succeeded one


of the best Leaders of the House of Commons there has ever been—the late Lord Crookshank. As Lord Privy Seal, he was Leader of the House from 1951 to 1955. If we check the record we shall see that no change in parliamentary procedure was made during that time. I believe that in private the then Leader of the House used to boast that the only thing that he ever had to give way on was when he had to give Welsh Members a chance to debate Welsh affairs on the Thursday before the Christmas Recess.
The Leader of the House was quite rightly proud of the fact that many of his friends congratulated him on his speech on the Loyal Address having been in the best tradition of Harry Crookshank. Nevertheless, I remind him that perhaps the love-in with my predecessor's memory will not be so great if he proceeds with many more of these reforms in our parliamentary procedure. I conclude by repeating to my right hon. Friend the following words of Shakespeare:
Enough; no more;
'Tis not so sweet now as it was before.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: We have just heard a charming speech from the grass roots of the Conservative Party, illustrating conservatism in its best aspects.
The Leader of the House should not draw false conclusions from the absence of any motion on the Order Paper, in particular on the Ten-Minute Bill procedure. The Procedure Committee was chaired by my distinguished colleague the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), whose tolerance of his colleagues in Committee, and particularly of myself, deserves full credit. That Committee made a recommendation on the Ten Minutes Rule procedure for a specific reason. The fact that it is not on the Order Paper today is the choice of the Leader of the House and not the members of the Committee. The Leader of the House should recognise that at the moment we are talking in Government time. Though hon. Members present at this debate have a certain degree of ingenuity, they try to put down motions and amendments relevant to the topics that the Government have chosen for debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Under the terms of the motion it would have been open to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) to put down a motion on the Ten Minutes Rule procedure, had he so wished.

Mr. English: That may be technically true. I agree that the Leader of the House has opened up the Procedure Committee report, but I believe that one would normally have left the Leader of the House, in this case, to put his own resolutions, to which many hon. Members, including myself, could then have put amendments.
The point about the Ten-Minute Rule Bill procedure is very simple; it concerns something that affects those outside this House. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) who moved a Ten-Minute Rule Bill today, is an expert on the procedure. But in his first Session—I am glad to say he does not do it now—he used to ask for leave to bring in a Bill and never brought one in. He never had a Bill to bring in. The unfortunate effect of that practice was pointed out to him and he has since made sure that he always has a Bill when he makes application under the Ten Minute Rule, and he is quite right to do so. If one does not do that, other hon. Members may be irritated by constituents writing to them and saying "I hope you will support Joe Blogg's Bill" or "I hope you will oppose Joe Blogg's Bill " when there is no Bill.
One should not deceive the electorate. That was the sole reason for the Procedure Committee's making that suggestion. There should be no deception of the electorate. if we do not want to have a Bill drafted by an hon. Member who seeks leave to have a Bill brought in, we should abolish the Ten Minute Rule Bill procedure and call it something quite different, and have, say, a 10 minute space for hon. Members to say what they wish, or something of that character. But under the present procedure there should be something that can be referred to, otherwise people may think that the House has done something that it has not done.
Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in Committee I objected to the short speech proposal and I shall vote accordingly tonight. I would


obect to that proposal even more in the form in which it is in motion No. 2 Notwithstanding the remarks of the Leader of the House, I did not get an answer from Mr. Speaker, who merely said that he did not allow Privy Councillors to pre-empt the whole of the period up to 7 p.m. We know that. The Procedure Committee never said that they were allowed to.
The words of my amendment are, incidentally, an exact quotation of what was recommended by the Procedure Committee. What we said was the Privy Councillors could pre-empt the period up to 7 p.m., meaning most of that time or the bulk of it. If we are to have short speeches for Back Benchers and, at the same time, have the present priority for Privy Councillors, that is not what the Procedure Committee recommended. We recommended that on days when Back Benchers were restricted to 10 minute speeches, Privy Councillors should lose their automatic right to be called first. Let me be blunt about it—one would wish to have some Privy Councillors make long speeches at the beginning of the Second Reading debate, but there are others who may have been honoured men in their time but who may now be a little past it and one would wish to call them, but during the period from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. when they would also be restricted to speaking for 10 minutes.
This is what the Chair is here for. I do not believe that one can separate the two. To pass the recommendation contained in paragraph 2.9 of the report in the first motion and not mention part of it in the second motion, seems to me to leave the Chair with two contradictory statements. It would be much better if the Chair were to follow the recommendation in the first motion, which may possibly be agreed to, rather than in the second motion, which does not exactly conform to the recommendation of the Committee.
I think that the Committee proposal on Second Reading Committees is hedged about with so many small matters that it will never be of any use to anyone in getting a Second Reading. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is worrying too much. All that it will do it to enable hon. Members to get a debate which they will not get if one hon. Member objects to their

doing so. I have put down a small amendment there, on which the Leader of the House will no doubt comment later. However, the proposal is so hedged about with restrictions that I should like to widen it a tiny bit and to say that on any day other than a Friday when private Members' business occurs—it is usually on a Monday—the Member should have the same rights.
The point at issue here is that the Government never exercised the powers that we gave them. I served on a previous Procedure Committee which created the Second Reading Committee proceedings. What we said there was that a Minister of the Crown had to move that a Bill go to a Second Reading Committee. It was never our intention that Ministers of the Crown should not do that for Private Members' Bills. But they do not do it. It was our intention that, whoever the Leader of the House was, he should, if he thought it appropriate, move for a Second Reading Committee for any Bill, be it a Government Bill or a Private Member's Bill.
Unfortunately, successive Leaders of the House have chosen never to do it except in the case of Government measures. The result therefore is that Back Benchers do not have the same rights as members of the Government, which generally speaking in this House they do in relation to Bills they are restricted as to time but not in other procedural ways.
Because the Government have failed to exercise the power that we gave them, we thought that we must find another device and allow the private Member himself, the Member in charge of the Bill, to move for a Second Reading Committee. That is the reason for the suggestion.
If the Leader of the House does not like that, all he has to do is to give the House an assurance that he would exercise the powers given to him by the present Standing Order in appropriate cases. That might possibly be a better way. It might meet the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South in a better way. However, the present practice of the Government having a power which they do not exercise and thus frustrating private Members from even getting their Bill talked about is unsatisfactory. I hope that in some way it will be altered.
The 9.30 a.m. proposal is so piffling a little thing that it is a matter of great unimportance. It seems that hon. Members think that by adjourning at 2.30 p.m. or 3 p.m. one can somehow get to one's constituency at an appropriate time. In the case of Nottingham, I assure the House that it makes no difference whatsoever. Due to a quirk of British Rail the service to Nottingham is such that it takes over two hours—only a few minutes less than it takes to get to Warrington. The result is that instead of arriving at 7 o'clock in the evening, one might arrive at 6 o'clock, or thereabouts. It does not make a practical difference. Very few people hold meetings at 6 o'clock.
Perhaps the House wishes to approve this proposal. However, I think that it is likely to cause difficulties when people try to get here through the London rush hour—but most of those difficulties are inflicted upon millions of people, so I suppose that there is no real reason why we should not be subjected to the traffic difficulties of this city.
I refer lastly to my amendment concerning the Liaison Committee. That amendment has been selected. By the sound of what the Leader of the House said, it looks as though I need not move that amendment at a later stage. In order to assist me, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would describe a little of what he would have said in his closing speech—the point at issue being the nature of the terms of reference that he is proposing to produce next week. The terms of reference that I have put down are exactly those recommended by the Procedure Committee. Obviously I did not take it upon myself as an individual to change them. I think, therefore, that if the Leader of the House wishes to change those terms of reference, I would wish him to justify the change from those recommended by the Procedure Committee. I do not think that it is the other way round. I think that he has to say why the terms of reference suggested by the Procedure Committee may not necessarily be satisfactory.
The importance of the Liaison Committee cannot be underestimated. Sooner or later, inevitably, problems will arise. There has already been the problem of Sub-Committees. The Procedure Committee recommended that certain of the larger

Committees should have two Sub Commitees so that every member of the Committee should serve on one of them. Now by restricting those to one Sub-Committee we have created first-class and second-class citizens in the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, the Home Affairs Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is unfortunate, to say the least.
On the other hand, we cannot allow Committees to proliferate ad infinitum. We realised that in the Procedure Committee, and we said that the simple, obvious solution was to have a Liaison Committee and to give it the power to decide whether a Sub-Committee was really necessary, because it affects staff and accommodation. In relation to Select Committees, staff and accommodation are two of the main things that we wanted the Liaison Committee to consider. But it could consider other things. There were several procedural recommendations which are not yet on the Order Paper but which I hope will eventually come forward, on matters such as how the minutes of Select Committees and their Sub-Committees should be presented. They are small but useful things. They were not controversial but they should eventually be dealt with. If the Leader of the House had a Liaison Committee he would have a Committee with which to have a dialogue on such matters. Therefore, I hope that he will make sure that such a Committee has an adequate set of terms of reference when he puts down his motion next week.
I support the bulk of the motions, though by no means all of them, and not the motion in regard to Standing Order No. 9. I certainly congratulate the Leader of the House on his bringing all these forward for discussion and decision by the House. It really is hopeless if we can never change our procedures. The House alone has the power to do that, usually upon a free vote. It hardly ever does it without some Committee having considered the matter in detail. When those Committees have considered it and nothing whatsoever happens, it is a matter of total frustration to anyone who believes that there is some small procedural change which can take place.
The Leader of the House deserves full credit for seeing that this night we have the opportunity to make those decisions.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. David Price: Perhaps I may follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing forward these motions.
I shall detain the House on only one issue—the length of speeches. I can claim before the House to be a reformed sinner. In my early days in the House I used to feel it necessary to enlighten the House on every subject, if I was lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, with what the French would call a tour d'horizon. I felt intellectually that it was necessary to do that. I have learnt the error of my ways. I can in truth say that in the last six years I have never made a speech of more than 10 minutes. Therefore, I have felt with a clear conscience that I could support all the motions on the Order Paper, including early-day motions for brevity in speeches. I go further and plead guilty to having sponsored some myself.
That is the background to what I wish to say. It is my personal confession.
The basic reason for curtailing speeches is to enable more hon. Members to get into the debate. Sometimes right hon. Members on both sides of the House forget a little their Back-Bench days and the immense frustration that hon. Members suffer when continuously they do not get into debates. Indeed, there is only one experience more demanding upon an hon. Member than being called by Mr. Speaker, and that is not being called by Mr. Speaker.
There are moments when one skulks out of the Division Lobby after the subsequent vote repeating the words of G. K. Chesterton in "The Secret People"—
Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.
For we are the people of England that never have spoken yet.
There is no reform of the procedures of this House by which we can get every Member into every debate in which he wishes to have his say. Nevertheless, I believe that if we had shorter speeches we could get very many more right hon. and hon. Members into debates.
I would go further than the motion on the Order Paper for the Select Committee's

proposal. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), I believe that we should have general limitation of speeches from Back Benchers—I include all Back-Bench Privy Councillors in this—for all Second Reading debates, all Supply days and all debates on the Address or on the Budget. It is possible to make a speech on the Budget during the Second Reading of the Finance Bill as that is not limited by time. Nevertheless, I prefer to have the motion applied to the Budget debates too.
During a major debate, there are rarely more than four hours available for Back Benchers or Back Bench Privy Councillors. Often only three hours are available, and we all have experience of that. A small number of Opposition Back Benchers, particularly in a multi-party Parliament where minority parties must be given an opportunity to speak, are not called until late, so that brevity would help everybody.
Having made a simple mathematical calculation, I suggest that one should aim at including at least 24 Back Benchers in a major debate. At the moment we do well to include 12; perhaps 10 minutes is too short. The proposal on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for a limit of 15 minutes may be more appropriate.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, we can no longer rely on the good sense of the House or on self-discipline. We have gone beyond that. We should experiment with imposed discipline because it is to the advantage of hon. Members to have short speeches. To use an old phrase, it is not necessary in speeches to be eternal in order to be immortal.
I shall give three examples where brevity is the essence of the message. In the Book of Common Prayer, the Lord's Prayer consists of 71 words, including "Amen". The Apostles' Creed contains 110 words, and the Ten Commandments, ignoring the responses, contains 285 words. In the old days, the BBC Talks Department used to give the rough guide of 120 words a minute when advising how long a talk should be, and the examples from the Book of Common Prayer are under two minutes, except for the Ten Commandments, which are just over.
A 10-minute speech should contain about 1,200 words, and much can be said within that limit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, the disadvantage for some hon. Members may be that to make a short, crisp speech requires more preparation than a long rambling one. It is possible to distinguish an hon. Member who has not prepared his speech and who rambles on without knowing when to sit down.
As Mark Twain said:
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech.
That is a lesson for us all.
Some hon. Members would like to see a limitation to the speeches made from the Front Bench. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave good reasons why that would not be beneficial, but I hope that we can rely on a degree of self-denial from Front-Bench spokesmen. People wish to hear from the Front Benches, particularly when a Bill is being introduced. In that respect the realism of John Morley is relevant:
Three things matter in a speech—who says it, how he says it and what he says—and of the three, the last matters the least.
A Minister's words carry more weight than those of Back Benchers—simply because he is the Minister.
Motion No. 2 does not go far enough, but we move cautiously in Parliament and I am content to give the experiment in Motion No. 2 a trial. I remind the House that it is only an experiment; it is for applying in Second Reading debates only and only between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. It is not a very revolutionary motion and applies only to this Session of Parliament. I beg the House to give this modest motion a chance and urge hon. Members to be brave and brief.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan: I shall obey the injunction of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) to be brief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pointed out that it might be for the convenience of the House if I spoke about the Select Committee on Scottish affairs. I am therefore not taking a double share of Front Bench time. Scottish affairs fit uneasily into the debate, as it is concerned purely

with procedural matters. However, I welcome the establishment of the Scottish Committee and am glad to have an early opportunity to debate it.
It is a separate issue from the management of Scottish parliamentary business. The Leader of the House has written to the parties on that point, and we are considering it. It has nothing to do with devolution. That came before the House previously, in the Scotland Bill. There have been previous Select Committees on Scottish affairs, in 1968–69 and 1971–72. I shall refer to them later. We are not establishing a novelty in Scottish affairs.
The terms of reference of the motion on the Order Paper are adequate and comprehensive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has pointed out, there are fears that as Scottish affairs cannot always be circumscribed within Scottish borders there may be difficulty in taking evidence from Government Departments. No such difficulty arises from the motion. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm that. Judging by the precedent set by Select Committees taking evidence from Government Departments outside the Scottish Office, the terms of reference adequately cover that point.
It is a pity that the motion does not include a specific provision for the establishment of at least one Sub-Committee. The previous Select Committee on Scottish affairs worked through two Sub-Committees rather than the main Committee. Given the wide scope of work in the Scottish Office, it will be difficult for the Select Committee to work efficiently unless it divides into two Sub-Committees. I should have liked that provision to be included in the motion.
I appreciate the opening remarks of the Leader of the House. He said that if it were felt that a Sub-Committee was necessary it would be considered. I hope it will be considered favourably. That is particularly important for the Scottish Office, because of its wide range of work. There is no reason why an investigation into housing cannot be carried out at the same time as an investigation into industry or education. All those matters fall within the work of the Scottish Office. However, it would be impossible to do that without a division of work. I look forward to that development.
The motion in the name of the Leader of the House provides for 11 Members on the Scottish Committee. My amendment would provide for 13. Another amendment selected provides for 20 and an amendment that has not been selected provides for 21.
I believe that I have the support of a large number of Scottish hon. Members when I say that I strongly believe that we need more than 11 Members on the Scottish Committee. The work of the Scottish Office covers a wide field and there will soon be a need to divide that work into two sections.
If the Committee has only 11 Members of the House, problems arise in relation to the position of minority parties. I see one English Member of the Liberal Party here but I do not see any hon. Member from the SNP.

Mr. English: The Procedure Committee made no recommendations about a Welsh or Scottish Committee because of the albatrosses hanging round our necks at the time. Had such recommendations been made, the size of the Committees would have been considered. My right hon. Friend's remarks, however, are relevant to size when considering Sub-Committees. The Procedure Committee was convinced that no large Committee could adequately take evidence. The proceedings in a large Committee resemble those on the Floor of the House, when it is difficult for one hon. Member to continue a line of questioning without irritating others. Evidence would therefore have to be taken in Sub-Committees. I support my right hon. Friend's comments and hope that he will stick to his guns.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Apart from his remark about albatrosses, I agree with what he said. We shall have to consider the matter again soon. If a Committee is too large, it is impossible to maintain a coherent line of questioning and have all members participating, and its work is not done adequately without a coherent line of questioning. It is equally unfortunate if too much is left to the Chairman. My hon. Friend has considerable practical experience of the working of Select Committees, and I welcome his support.
I repeat that there is a need for more than 11 Committee members. During the Labour Government in 1968–69 and 1969–70, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had 16 members, and in 1970–71 and 1971–72 it had 14, so 11 would be a retrograde step.
The Labour Party has twice as many hon. Members in Scotland as the Conservative Party has, and there has elsewhere been speculation on the question whether the Government should have the normal majority on the Scottish Committee. In present circumstances I accept that they should, but that question can be looked at further if the all-party talks on the management of Scottish parliamentary business ever take place. That is not an argument against increasing the size of the Committee.
My proposal for 13 members is modest, and I hope that the Leader of the House will accept the amendment. It will have widespread acceptance in Scotland. I am anxious, not least in view of the history of the Scotland Act, that the Select Committee should do a good job for the House. My amendment would help it do that job, and I hope that the House will agree.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fraser: I doubt whether I shall again have the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and express my complete agreement with him. If I were on a future occasion to do so, that agreement might meet with considerable consternation on this side of the House.
The proposed constitutional change and its importance to Scotland is so obvious that I unreservedly welcome the proposal to set up a Select Committee on Scottish affairs. I also welcome the decision to put the motion before the House now and not wait until the possible conclusion of the all-party talks. I did not understand the argument for waiting until these talks were concluded, which would have significantly reduced the importance of the constitutional change in the eyes of the people of Scotland. It would have been seen as the least worth while of a number of devolutionary changes in the government of Scotland, which it is not. It is a constitutional change in the arrangements whereby this


House scrutinises and observes the proper government of Scotland while retaining its powers. Whatever views hon. Members may have about the debacle of the previous Government's Assembly proposals, I believe that in Scotland there is still an acute desire to see that the government of Scotland is properly scrutinised.
The setting up of the Select Committee will have a valuable and worthwhile side effect. Hon. Members from Scotland agree that, in spite of all that has been said in recent years about government in Scotland, there is a surprising lack of understanding about the amount of executive control and power vested in the Scottish Office. There is a great ignorance of the fact that the vast majority of Scottish civil servants are not just resident but work in Scotland; and, relatively speaking, Dover House is a tiny part of the Scottish Office. With the Select Committee sitting in Scotland and scrutinising the work of the Scottish Office, it will be brought to the attention of the Scottish people that there is a Scottish Office in Scotland.
The working and activity of the Select Committee may from time to time cause discomfort to the Secretary of State for Scotland and other Ministers in the Scottish Office. However, in spite of that, I do not hesitate warmly to support the proposal.
There have previously been Select Committees on Scottish Affairs, but this motion at this time is significant because it will be more widely accepted than ever before by all hon. Members. Furthermore, there is an enthusiasm and determination to see the proposals work.
One significant political sector in Scotland has not unreservedly welcomed the introduction of the Select Committee—the Scottish National Party. Neither hon. Member from that Party has been present during the debate, which will not have escaped the attention of the House. It is not surprising that it is not in favour of the proposal. If in scrutinising the Scottish Office the Select Committee reveals that there is good government in Scotland or, if there is bad government that it can be put right, that party will have lost the opportunity to nurture the sense of resentment and remoteness that has been

the mainspring of much of its political activity and support in Scotland in recent years.
I welcome the motion and all that has be said by the Leader of the House, but we must recognise that in some respects it has yet to be clothed. The powers that should be attendant upon the Committee have yet to be spelled out.
I hope that I did not read too much into my right hon. Friend's remarks when I assumed that potentially what he indicated was that the size of this Committee might be larger than the existing Select Committee that was set up in June, and that potentially the Select Committee on Scottish affairs might have greater powers than any of the other Select Committees that have already been established.
I should like to make a number of brief observations on the powers to be given to the Select Committee. My first point relates to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and the proposal that
other Government Departments with responsibilities in Scotland
might be subject to the scrutiny of this Committee. I would welcome that. While we never want to arrive at the state of affairs experienced by the American Congress from time to time—where, for example, on the Three Mile Island disaster no fewer than 12 Committees are looking into one aspect or another—it would nevertheless seem to me that in the Scottish context an element of jurisdictional conflict between other Select Committees and the Select Committee on Scottish affairs would not altogether be unwelcome. It would certainly have the effect of ensuring that hon. Members who sat on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs were kept on their toes.
As the right hon. Member for Craig-ton has already said, some indication about the number of Sub-Committees that are to be allowed would have been welcomed. But I take the point that until we have determined the size of the Select Committee it is more difficult rationally to establish the number of Sub-Committees that there should be.
Finally, but by not means least importantly, I hope that this Select Committee will be able to sit in Scotland and will be subjected to the glare of publicity,


possibly with television cameras in attendance. Irrespective of one's political views, I believe that we must demonstrate publicly that this Select Committee is important.
Although the proposal with regard to the Select Committee on Scottish affairs may fit awkwardly into the context of the rest of this debate, I trust that hon. Members, especially those who do not come from Scotland, will appreciate that this constitutional reform will not only be widely welcomed in Scotland but will also be one of the greatest importance.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. John Maxton: I make the same point as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), in that it is rare for me to agree with so much that he said. I begin my remarks by taking up the question of the Scottish Select Committee. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and the hon. Member for South Angus, I believe that the proposal with regard to such a Select Committee sits rather unusually in this debate. I may be considered a little more contentious by suggesting that it reflects the Government's attitude to the better government of Scotland, compared with the last Government's attitude, by subsuming such an important item in a general debate of this nature. I believe that the question of the Scottish Select Committee should have had a debate to itself so that it could have been discussed fully.
The numbers to be appointed to the Select Committee are very important. I hope that even tonight the Government will give way on the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Craig-ton. We need that number as soon as the Select Committee is established. It has very little to do with the all-party talks on devolution. It concerns the problems of the organisation of work of existing Government Departments. It has nothing to do with the Scottish Assembly. We need larger numbers in order to carry on the work of the Select Committee on Scottish affairs.
The plain fact is that at present the Scottish Office deals with nine subjects which each have a separate Department in England and Wales. That requires a level of expertise and supervision by hon. Members which in my view cannot adequately

be undertaken by 11 people. The number must be greater than that. I assume that the present rules will apply to membership of the Select Committee on Scottish affairs. If they do, it means that the main Opposition party, although the major party in Scotland, will be represented by four or five Members. The work that those four or five people will have to undertake is too great a burden. If we had six, seven or more Members, the task would be spread much more evenly and we could do a better job.
I turn to a matter that many hon. Members may feel is related to Scotland—the problem of the Summer Recess. I am disappointed both in the Procedure Committee's report and in the remarks of the Leader of the House. As a Scottish Member who is married with three small children, two of whom are at school, I believe that an impossible burden is placed upon myself and other young married Scottish Members. Our school holidays begin at the end of June and sometimes finish as early as the middle of August. If the House does not rise until the end of the first week in August, which is reasonably common, according to the figures over the last 20 years, that leaves us one week at most in which to have a holiday with our wives and children. That is an intolerable burden, which is additional to the burdens that are already placed on Members from distant parts of the country. By not seeing our families for five days a week anyway we are already putting strains on our wives.
I doubt whether this is common only to Scottish Members; I believe that it is a problem that affects all hon. Members, particularly those with young families. The respect with which this House and hon. Members are held by the public is something of which we should always be aware. When the Houses rises at the end of July or the beginning of August, and does not return until the end of October, it is not treated with a great deal of respect by the public.
I know from experience—I am sure that other hon. Members do, also—that at the end of September or the beginning of October neighbours, friends and members of the public remark "Still on holiday, I see". That is not a position in which Members of Parliament should be placed. I tabled an amendment, which


unfortunately has not been selected, suggesting an alternative.
This is not a new proposal. If one looks at the report of the Procedure Committee for 1967–68, one finds that it proposed a parliamentary year that was not radically different from the one that I propose in my amendment. It was that we should rise on 11 July, return on 16 September and sit until 3 October, and have another recess for the party conferences until 27 October. That is not very different from the proposal in my amendment.
I shall deal with the objections in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure and select one or two of them specifically. It is said that there is a problem with the Finance Bill—that we cannot get it through in time to allow the House to rise in the middle of July, as opposed to the first week in August. In 1967–68 the Select Committee made it quite clear that the Finance Bill was normally dealt with by early July. As the House of Lords debated it for only one day, there was no reason why the House could not finish it by the middle of July.
I accept that over the past five years the Finance Bill has completed all its stages later than early July. However, the last five years were unusual—we had a minority Government and it was obvious that the Opposition could keep the House working longer on the Finance Bill than it can now that the Government have a large majority. Therefore, that argument does not hold water.
During the period between the Budget and the completion of the Finance Bill the House indulges in a two-week Whitsun Recess. We in Scotland do not even have a one-week holiday. There is a one-day local holiday, which does not necessarily coincide with Whitsun. Therefore, the fortnight's recess does not necessarily give any benefit to hon. Members who are family men.
No one outside the House has a two-week recess at that time of the year. At most, other people have one week's holiday. If the House were prepared to accept a one-week recess and move towards completing the Session by the middle of July, we would all be much happier in our

work, and the work of the House would be improved. I hope that the Leader of the House will answer these points.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) raised the question whether the first motion on the Order Paper is executive. He raised this aspect in terms of the rights of Privy Councillors. I think we must assume that it is advisory to the Chair rather than mandatory. This is just as well, because if it were taken literally it would have the opposite consequences to those the Select Committee intended. On page 14 of the First Report in para 2.9 a double negative is contained in line 6 with the result that Privy Councillors would be able to pre-empt the period up to 7 p.m. which is, of course, the exact opposite of what the Committee intended.
It seems a little incongruous that the hours from 7 p.m. to 8.50 p.m. should be subject to this 10-Minutes Rule. I can see an argument for saying that all speeches except the opening and closing speeches should be subject to the 10-minutes rule. However, I do not see why those on whom the 10-minute discipline is imposed should be condemned to speaking when the Press Gallery is empty, as it is from 7 p.m. to 8.50 p.m. That seems a somewhat unhappy choice. If there is to be a division of time, should it not be the other way round? Those who are prepared to confine themselves to 10 minutes should have the prime time and those who want to make long speeches should pay the penalty and should do so unobserved from the Press Gallery. That is a more logical use of incentives than that which is embodied in this provision.
In saying that we agree with the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1977–78, and the recommendations contained in para 2.9, we are definitely requesting Mr. Speaker to suspend the privileges of Privy Councillors for the totality of the time. That is the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West.
That is not the only unfortunate choice of words. My right hon. Friend's motion to which we come later—it is Order No.


12—contains not only a nonsense, but a self-contradiction. It says:
on a day allotted to the business of supply under Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply), where to any substantive motion an amendment has been moved by a Minister of the Crown to leave out a word or words and insert others the Question shall be, 'That the original words stand part of the Question,
So far, so good. That received our general commendation. It then goes on:
and, if that Question be passed in the negative, the Question 'That the proposed words be there added' shall be put forthwith.
To start with, it is not possible for a Question to be passed—it is decided. A motion or an amendment can be passed, but it is not within the realms of possibility for a Question to be passed. Therefore, it surprises me that this got past the Table Office. Moreover, to be passed in the negative is a contradiction in terms. If something is passed, it is affirmed. It can only be decided in the negative.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend. When I looked at the drafting it struck me that this was an odd phrase. However, it is one which has a precedent. It is already in Standing Order No. 39(2). I understand that Mr. Speaker is not prepared to accept a manuscript amendment. Therefore I suggest we make the best of it, not the worst.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The fact that a self-contradiction and malapropism has been allowed to creep into our Standing Orders unnoticed is no reason why we should repeat such an unhappy occurrence. Draftsmen are there to be used, not abused.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Ministers are there to be abused.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Ministers are there to accept responsibility for incompetent draftsmen. It is unfortunate that if we are trying to pass a new Standing Order, it should contain a self-contradiction and an impossibility. My right hon. Friend has explained what it is intended to mean, but does not mean, but that does not help the House. That may seem a churlish introduction to my welcome for my right hon. Friend's action in placing before the House the series of decisions which the House wishes to take.
The hours of work that are put in on a Select Committee are taxing. They become totally frustrating if nothing happens to the report of that Committee, except that it becomes available in the Vote Office. The present Leader of the House, unlike his predecessor who used to pretend to have an interest in parliamentary reform and procedure, has enabled the House to debate and take positive decisions about which recommendations it does or does not wish to bring into effect.
I was heartened when my right hon. Friend gave his undertaking about the new Standing Order on Friday sittings, if we come to adopt that proposal. It would be absurd if we started at 9.30 a.m. instead of at 11 a.m. and continued until the same hour as previously. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Standing Order would not be suspended and that the House would rise at the completion of the Adjournment debate at 3 p.m. is a necessary assurance if the intention of the Procedure Committee's recommendation, which is embodied in the resolution, is to be brought into effect.
When I was first elected to this place a whole range of public officials worked on Saturday mornings, whether in local government, the national assistance board—as it then was—the electricity board or the gas board. Those officials could be consulted on constituents' business on Saturday mornings. Nowadays, that is not the case. Indeed, in the case of the Department of Health and Social Security, one is not permitted to know its telephone number to make contact over the weekend. Therefore, there are serious reasons why a Member of Parliament needs to be in his constituency during the week. Even close of play at 2.30 p.m. does not enable many MPs—paradoxically, not the Scottish ones who are able to fly—to reach their constituencies in good time in parts of the country where there is no air service. However, it would enable them to reach their constituencies in time to attend Friday evening meetings. For those Members of Parliament whose constituencies cover several hundred square miles that is an important measure.
The saving of time is not just the apparent saving of an hour and a half's shift over the same period of time in this


place. Those hon. Members who drive out of here on the M4 will be aware that after 4 p.m. on a Friday it can take an hour and a quarter to cover the first 11 miles to the motorway. Once there, the motorist proceeds in a queue at 45 miles an hour or 50 miles an hour until after Reading. I hope that the House will adopt this long overdue reform. At the times of the year when there is fog or snow there are additional advantages in reaching one's constituency at a time other than too late at night to participate in a meeting or after a long drive in the dark.
On balance, I believe that the proposal concerning Standing Order No. 9 is an unhappy one. There has been, and there will be, abuse of Standing Order No. 9, but I do not care to challenge that proposition. I took note of one amendment, which was not selected, which sought to compromise by limiting speeches to three minutes. If that amendment had been selected it might well have found favour with several hon. Members. However, to interdict hon. Members from raising, under Standing Order No. 9, events that have occurred in the middle of the day or even at Question Time—or in statements by Ministers—would be to turn Parliament into too much of a processing machine for legislation and make it too little of a deliberative body that can show a sense of urgency when it is justified. The price to be paid is that a little time is lost before the normal commencement of Orders of the Day.
It is possible to get around that problem in various ways. Applications for Standing Order No. 9 debates on a given day could be limited to one. One of the grossest abuses can be a succession of Standing Order No. 9 applications. In that way, it would be possible, through the unofficial vibrations by which the House functions, to arrange whose application would be heard on any given day. There are ways in which the nuisance can be mitigated without the merit being totally lost.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no way of preventing an hon. Member from raising, as a point of order which is spurious or otherwise, a matter about which he is desperately concerned? Surely, it is better to have

that procedure, so that when there is a genuine reason for debate the matter can come to light.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On principle, it is desirable that, where there is agreement that the hon. Member concerned shall air a matter, rightly or wrongly, there should be the legitimate channel of a Standing Order No. 9 application rather than the illegitimate channel of taking a bogus point of order.

Mr. Emery: I wonder whether my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) and Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would care to look at the evidence which was taken from Mr. Speaker on this point? He considered that it was easier for him to control spurious points of order, when hon. Members were trying to raise matters that they considered to be of importance, than spurious Standing Order No. 9 applications. The evidence of Mr. Speaker played a considerable part in influencing the decision of the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Speaker is entitled to his view, just as hon. Members are entitled not to share that view. I believe that it is better to have a legitimate procedure. It is more consonant with the dignity of the House than to have a bogus procedure. Irritating and inconvenient as it may be, it is a necessary function of Parliament. If I were in Opposition I would be suspicious about the motivation that lay behind the proposal, even though, as my former right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire, Sir David Renton, said, the idea did not originate from the Government and such suspicion is, therefore, ill-founded. It is in the nature of being in Opposition to attribute to Government motives which may not exist.
In the fifth report of the Sessional Committee—1976–77—on which the Procedure Committee report in based, there is an obvious error in paragraph 3 on the introductory page. It says:
 In Your Committee's opinion, the source of many of the difficulties outlined above lies in the fact that the House has provided in the two weekly periods of fifteen minutes, more time for Questions to the Prime Minister than to any other Minister".
That is simply not true. A Minister can be questioned for the whole of Question Time on Mondays and Wednesdays, less


the time taken for prayers. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, a Minister can be questioned for 40 minutes. Ministers can be questioned for a considerable period of time.
I do not understand the mechanism that is envisaged when the Committee recommends that there should be fewer indirect questions to the Prime Minister. With its next breath, the Committee implicitly criticises syndicated questions, but unless hon. Members operate in a syndicate or have the gift of telepathy, they cannot know whether other hon. Members are tabling indirect questions.
I can understand the proposition that there should be no indirect questions. That means that no hon. Member should table such questions. I do not, however, understand the proposition that there should be fewer indirect questions, since an hon. Member who is minded to table such a question has no means of estimating whether the "quota" of indirect questions which is envisaged has been exhausted. It is a rather woolly proposition which was not clearly thought out. Either there must be no indirect questions or they are allowable. The only other possibility is for the House to rule that the Table Office should accept only a finite number of such questions before pulling up the drawbridge. However, none of those propositions is offered. The Sessional Committee's report invites us to agree to the proposition that there should be fewer indirect questions.
Fortunately, we do not have an executive motion embodying that woolly proposition and we are only taking note of the fifth report of the Sessional Committee rather than agreeing to it, wholly or partly, as we have with some other reports.
I am not sure that the "take note" motion takes us any further. What carries us further down the road is the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated that she is willing to answer more questions and to transfer fewer. That will make Prime Minister's Question Time more informative than it was with the mechanism that left the supplementary question occult until the main question had been answered.
We have a heterogeneous collection of proposals on which to decide. I thank

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for being so responsive to the wishes of the House. This is not his first demonstration of that attitude. When my right hon. Friend altered the proposal that the composition of our new Select Committees should be decided by the Committee of Selection, rather than by the Whips' Offices, he did so in direct response to the clearly expressed wishes of the House. It is a matter of regret that some sections of the House, having expressed that wish, should have prevented their Members on the Committee of Selection from functioning in the way that the House clearly intended.
Having lost the whole of the recess, in which the Select Committees could have been preparing themselves for their investigations, the Committee of Selection will, I hope, be enabled to do the job that the House entrusted to it and that it is being allowed to do thanks to the response of the Leader of the House to the clear wishes of the House.
To have a Leader of the House who responds to the wishes of the House and permits the House to take decisions, even if he does not agree with them, rather than prevents the House from taking decisions, as happened in the previous Parliament, is a healthy constitutional and personal development for which I warmly thank my right hon. Friend.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Leader of the House may find it convenient if I address my first few remarks directly to him, because they concern matters with which he is most directly concerned.
Agreement is breaking out all over the place. Agreement between the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell Hyslop) and the Liberal Bench is rare indeed, but I join the hon. Gentleman in complimenting the Leader of the House on bringing the matters before us in a way that allows us to make decisions. What matters is not the ability of a Select Committee to get its reports debated but that the House should reach decisions on them. The right hon. Gentleman has enabled us to do that and we are grateful to him. I hope that he will proceed in that way on other matters.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's indications on other recommendations of


the Procedure Committee, particularly those concerning Public Bills. Many pieces of legislation come before the House on which we need the opportunity for those outside to be questioned in the way that the Procedure Committee envisages. We should proceed with that recommendation as soon as possible.
I am sure that new hon. Members will soon discover that our procedure for dealing with statutory instruments is farcical. It is absurd for an hon. Member to sit in a Committee for one and a half hours and to be told at the end that the only decision that the Committee can make is that is has considered the statutory instrument before it. That aspect must be reformed fairly soon.
The Leader of the House suggested that the summer would be early enough for a debate on such matters, but I hope that he will agree that, although we must allow sufficient time for further consultations, we can have that debate a little earlier so that a decision can be taken in time for it to be implemented at the start of the next Session.
The point on which I wish to take issue with the Leader of the House concerns the announcement of recess dates. I share the concern of Scottish Members who have laid particular emphasis on that matter.
I recognise that the Government cannot always determine well in advance the length of a recess or when it can begin, but they can be more helpful than Governments have been in the past. They ought at least to make it possible for hon. Members to book a holiday with their families on a reasonably certain date.
It would not be necessary to make recesses much shorter in order to do that. The Leader of the House seemed to hint that if Governments were pressed into the course that I suggest we would have shorter recesses. That would not be necessary. The Government could secure a limited period and leave open the question of how much more recess there could be.
Even if the dates of the recess were not included in an early resolution of each Session, the Leader of the House could make a fairly clear statement early on that it is intended that the House should rise on a certain date or should not be

sitting between certain dates—whatever further recess may later prove possible
I have sought in successive years to get Leaders of the House to make such an announcement two weeks before a recess was due to start. Normally they have been content to announce recess dates in the week preceding the start of the recess. The previous Leader of the House occasionally answered my question two weeks—and on one occasion three weeks—before the recess was due to begin. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was hoped that, subject to the progress of business, the House would rise on a certain date.
I hope that the present Leader of the House will be willing to answer such a question much earlier in the Session. If he must, he can retain the provisional element, use it as a goad or an incentive or say that dates are subject to the progress or business, but surely he can safeguard a minimum period during which hon. Members can know that they have a fairly certain chance of being able to take a family holiday, even if it is only a fortnight of clear time. The Leader of the House could help by indicating his willingness to make a statement in this form much earlier than Leaders of the House have traditionally done. With that reservation, I commend generally what the right hon. Gentleman has sought to do for the House tonight and hope that he will continue in those acts.
Many of the matters with which we are dealing are the minor works of Procedure Committee recommendations. But they are no less important for being so. Some have a particular value. I strongly support and commend to my hon. Friends the Friday recommendation. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Tiverton. For those of us with distant and scattered constituencies, there are many matters that one cannot organise except late on Friday afternoon and Friday evening. Our present arrangements put the carrying out of these engagements or our loyalty to parliamentary business in danger. This slight easing of the situation is welcome. I hope that the House will approve it. I have heard no criticism.
I welcome the setting up of the Scottish Select Committee. I do not view the move with unbounded enthusiasm. A lot more could be done for the government of Scotland. Although I am not a


Scottish Member, I can travel due south from my constituency into Scotland. If the Scottish Select Committee ever wants to come north to Berwick to hold one of its sittings, it will be more than welcome. In proceeding with the Scottish Select Committee, we must bear in mind that the intentions of the Select Committee on procedure for the setting up of committees of this type must be carried out and satisfied. Several months have elapsed since Select Committees on other subjects were set up, but this matter has yet to be discharged. As the hon. Member for Tiverton has said, these Committees could have begun useful work. I am not happy that these matters have failed to progress. The House should be sure that the Committee charged with these responsibilities is given every opportunity and encouragement to carry them out and that they are not left to be carried out and decided elsewhere. I hope that the Scottish Select Committee does not fall foul of the same delays.
I welcome, as the Leader of the House would expect, the inclusion among matters for decision tonight of the arrangement by which an additional amendment can be voted on at the end of the debate on the Loyal Address. This is important to minority parties such as mine. We find ourselves in difficulty at times when there are two propositions on the Order Paper with neither of which we agree. There are many occasions in this House when we feel that business is conducted to the advantage of the Government and to a lesser, but significant extent, the Opposition Front Bench. Their control over key features of the Order Paper and the time of the House works to the detriment of those who have other views to put forward.
We welcome this means of getting round the procedural difficulty that has prevented us so many times from expressing the views that electors sent us here to represent. We welcome the opportunity to have an amendment of our own voted on. We will use it to the best effect that we can.
There are other occasions, when debates range over several days, on which a similar need exists. Other groups, perhaps groups within a party, who disagree with the line taken by their own Front Bench, may want to make use of this right. This

is a direction in which we should move. It is an example of an experiment that has proved workable and is now to be continued.
I share some of the reservations about the attempt to abandon the Standing Order No. 9 procedure, even though I feel that the procedure has been abused on certain occasions in recent months. It has been tiresome to find hon. Members making repetitive Standing Order No. 9 applications on the same subject. But the occasional abuse does not justify the removal of what is a valuable right which we ought to safeguard.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the hon. Member under the impression that there is a recommendation to abandon Standing Order No. 9 procedure? The recommendation is no more to abandon Standing Order No. 9 procedure than it is to abandon private notice questions.

Mr. Beith: I meant that the recommendation was to abandon the procedure as we have known it, namely a procedure under which an hon. Member can come into the Chamber and give to the House his reasons for seeking an emergency debate rather than having to seek the approval of Mr. Speaker beforehand, which is the alternative now put forward. To many hon. Members, that seems a considerable reduction of their rights and opportunities. I do not consider that what I regard as the occasional abuse justifies so substantial a change and so substantial a deprivation. The House will give its opinion on this recommendation later. From what I have heard, it is unlikely to be carried. A suspicion is already abroad that anything so clearly to the advantage of Governments should not necessarily be supported.
The issue of Prime Minister's Questions has been raised. Many hon. Members genuinely find themselves frustrated in their attempts to improve what most of us agree is an unsatisfactory use of the procedures of the House. Most hon. Members, at some time, have attempted to put down a substantial question to the Prime Minister but have been frustrated in their attempts. Questions have been transferred. Hon. Members have been advised by the Table Office that questions


will not be accepted and they have returned to the old methods of the open question.
Hon. Members would like to see the procedure improved, but a great deal depends on the acceptance of questions. Judging by the limited indications we have received tonight, I think that there will have to be further examination before most hon. Members are able to understand what questions they will be allowed to table, have accepted and a reply given. I am sure that there is good will in the House among hon. Members who would like to see the procedure better used.
I understand that Prime Minister's Question Time is no longer broadcast. That is a reflection on our procedures. It is one of the matters that earned the greatest criticism during the initial period of the broadcasting of the House.
There are many larger measures on procedure to which we must return, particularly Public Bill procedure, delegated legislation and European matters. Time must be found to take decisions on these matters. But there is no reason why we should not tackle and take decisions on the matters before us tonight. I welcome the opportunity to do so.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: Although it is late in the debate, I should like to pay tribute to our recent colleague, Mr. Sydney Irving, who was Chairman of the Select Committe which dealt with the reports that are now before the House. He was most assiduous in looking after the Committee. The Committee was composed of hon. Members of great expertise. Sydney Irving, another former Member—Miss Betty Harvie Anderson—and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) once occupied the Chair that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are now occupying.
I should also like to congratulate the Leader of the House on allowing our work at last to come to the Floor of the House. It is not only frustrating but immensely discouraging when this House—not for months but for years—refuses to consider the findings of a Committee that has been directed by the House to investigate specific matters. I hope that we have learnt a lesson.
There is a major argument for altering the times of Friday sittings so as to allow hon. Members to leave London earlier in the afternoon. We are not going home. We are not going on holiday. The proposal is to enable us to fulfil constituency obligations on a Friday evening. This is frequently impossible if we have to remain at the House until 4 p.m. One has to decide whether one puts one's constituency before the House of Commons or puts one's House of Commons duty before one's constituency. I do not say that it will cure the problem, but the new sitting time will certainly help. It will encourage more hon. Members to attend on a Friday, I believe.
In this modern age, a Government should be able to arrange their business for fixed dates. I have been here 20 years, but I still find it amazing how speedily matters are dealt with towards the end of the Session in July. It is surprising how Governments get their business. It should be possible for them to set target dates at the beginning of the year. If the Opposition absolutely wrecked the Government's programme, the House would have to sit on, but target dates would be very convenient, especially to those Members with young families and those who want to take advantage of hotel bookings at prices they can afford.
In the discussion on length of speeches, surprisingly enough, no one has yet argued that a long speech is ever necessary. Yet it is sometimes impossible to mount a properly documented case in 10 minutes. It is just not true that all speeches can be made briefly. One can make a specific point in 10 minutes, but not a long and detailed case, especially if it is to be done convincingly.
A number of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) would not have been so weighty had they been made in eight or 10 minutes—although I have heard him make some pretty good speeches in that time as well.
However, I am in favour of an experiment for a given period between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock. So often, the Government Benches empty between those hours and Members have to be found to speak for as long as they can—eight, 10 or even 20 minutes. There are often masses of speakers from the


Opposition Benches, and the Government want to maintain an even balance of speeches. A 20-minute speech from their side cuts down the time available to the Opposition. This has happened under Governments of both parties and the proposed experiment might help to eliminate that practice.
I am glad to see the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), on the Front Bench, although I am also grateful that the Leader of the House has sat through the debate until this moment. Will the Select Committees, which I hope will be established by means of a motion on the Order Paper tomorrow, have the back-up facilities from the Department of the Clerk necessary to enable them to proceed quickly to their work?
The growth in the last Parliament of the number of applications under Standing Order No. 9, and the willingness of hon. Members to use it for constituency matters—that had never happened before—is an abuse which should not continue. No one says that the powers of the House have been limited because one has to obtain Mr. Speaker's permission for a private notice question, so why are they limited if the same rule is applied to Standing Order No. 9 applications?
As the report says, only three or four such applications a year are granted. The practice which has grown up in the last three or four years is an abuse. Those who want the present procedure to continue believe that one can state one's case when making the application—but that is not how one is supposed to proceed. Those who favour the present procedure are advocating the continuation of an abuse.
I am willing that the Select Committee should consider ways of allowing Back Benchers more time to raise matters of particular interest, but there is no sense in continuing an abuse which should never have been allowed in the first place.
On Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend is certainly doing her best to encourage a move from the vague and indirect question to the direct question on a specific point. The House would benefit from a return to the behaviour of the past. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the old procedure of the open question, but I would remind him that

in 1971–72 only 10 per cent. of Prime Minister's questions were open questions. Ten years earlier, the open question hardly existed. Yet in 1977, the figure was 58 per cent. and in recent times it has been roughly 75 per cent.
To have the Prime Minister answering any question on any subject at 3.15 twice a week does the House little good. We do not get substantive answers and it leads to the kind of "yah-boo" political battle between the Front Benches which does not benefit the House. It may be fun for us, but it is not respected outside. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, it was so unpopular in the country that the BBC stopped broadcasting Prime Minister's questions.
I wish to deal now with a sentence in the report of the 1976–77 Session on questions to the Prime Minister. It states on page xviii:
Finally the Chair would be greatly helped in carrying out this duty if the Select Committee felt able to draw attention, and comment upon, the growth over the years of the long and argumentative supplementary Question and the ever-increasing length of ministerial replies.
I tried to raise this as a point of order earlier today. I hope very much, as I suggested then, that the matter of the second and third supplementary question added on by the hon. Member who is called might be referred to a new Select Committee. The suggestion made in that sentence of the report could be considered in order that we could get through more questions. The record in the report shows that in 1967–68 we used to get through 38 questions during a Question Time, and that we are now down to only 20. We ought to be able to correct that.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I apologise at the outset for having missed a great part of the earlier stages of the debate. I was attending the Public Accounts Committee, which sat for two and a half hours. If I repeat what has already been said by others I hope that the House will understand that that is in the nature of the work of the House.
I believe that this debate is an unsatisfactory way of organising a discussion of these matters, although I cannot think of any better way. It is a disjointed debate, with no continuous theme. We all have our own specialist hobby horses that we choose to ride. I suspect that that is


partly why the House is now so badly attended. We could have made a small effort to improve this method of proceeding by, for example, adopting the suggestion that I put to the Leader of the House earlier this week.
It is intolerable that the subject of a Scottish Select Committee should be linked with matters such as questions to the Prime Minister, Standing Order No. 9, and the rest. Why could not the question of a Select Committee for Scotland be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, where the Scottish Members could talk at length—and they do, and they like it—without disturbing anybody? They could be sent upstairs to talk about their problems until all hours of the night, if they wanted to. At least that would give them satisfaction, and we should probably get a much better solution to the problem as the Scottish Members see it. That would be far preferable to having one or two short speeches here in the House by Scottish Members on this matter with other hon. Members being bored stiff with them.
I am not enthusiastic about making short speeches. I like to feel free, to think that I am a political buccaneer and that once I rise to my feet I can say what I like for as long as I like in the way I like. I do not want Mr. Speaker telling me, in the course of a great peroration, "Your time is up, mate." I do not like that. Such an activity should be referred to the Restrictive Practices Court. During the course of my experience in this House I have seen the rights of Back Benchers repeatedly being curtailed bit by bit over the years.

Mr. Hooley: If my hon. Friend asserts his right to go on and on and on, he is curtailing the rights of his colleagues.

Mr. Hamilton: No, we are all equal here. We all have the same opportunities. The discretion is within the right of the Chair. If the Chair sees that an hon. Member is committing an abuse by talking at great length and talking nonsense, moreover, it ought to see that that hon. Member is a long time in being called again. The discipline rests with the Chair, therefore, and with the judgment of the Back-Bench Member. I do not want something written into the rules to provide that we must make speeches of only 10 minutes.
All kinds of difficulties could arise. What would happen at 7 o'clock at night when the chopper came down and an hon. Member was in full spate and determined to keep going? In that case would extra time be allowed after 9 o'clock to make up the two hours of 10-minute speeches? What happens if I am speaking at 7 o'clock and Mr. Speaker says "Sit down"? If I say "No, thank you very much. I want to finish my speech" he will say that there is a Standing Order providing that I must sit down. It is to that kind of restrictive practice that I object very much. Furthermore, this will apply only to Second Reading debates. I do not know why that is so. Why are foreign affairs debates not to be included? Why do we not go the whole hog and cover all debates with a restriction of this kind?

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: That has been suggested.

Mr. Hamilton: I apologise if I am going over old ground, but that is in the nature of my difficulty.
This is not a novel suggestion. The Procedure Committee proposed some years ago that there should be one hour in each debate during which hon. Members should speak for no more than five minutes each. That was turned down on the ground that it would tend to create first- and second-class Members. The second-class dross would go along to the Chair saying that they had not anything sensible to say that they could not say in five minutes, and the Chair would put them down to speak in that hour. No doubt that would be the dinner hour, when everyone else was feeding himself. The poor infantryman would have to fit into that one hour. The same would happen with the new proposal for a two-hour period.
If this proposition is to be accepted in principle, I suggest that the two hours be devoted exclusively to Privy Councillors, each of whom should speak for not more than 10 minutes. That would be acceptable to a large majority of Back Benchers. If it were put to them on a free vote it would be carried overwhelmingly. That is the kind of nonsense that we get when we try to restrict the rights of Back Benchers.
I turn next to the question of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Of


course it is abused, as is the Ten Minute Rule procedure. A lot of the rules of this House are abused precisely because we are a free Assembly. Members will always bend the rules, trying out the patience of the Chair and seeing how far they can go before the Chair wakes up and calls them to order. Those aspects cannot be dealt with by inserting various rules, changing the Standing Orders and the rest. As the Standing Orders are changed, Members will seek ways of getting round the amended Orders. Standing Order No. 9 is a very good safeguard and safety valve for the Back Bencher. Let us suppose that he raises a question, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) complained, on a constituency matter. What is wrong with that? We are here as constituency Members. We have constituency interests to safeguard. If a Member has a marginal scat it can be an important publicity exercise to engage in a Standing Order No. 9 debate on a parochial matter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: May I suggest a reason against that proposition? Indeed, the Member asking leave may make a constituency point—but he is making it in circumstances in which he can say anything without its being answered in any way or corrected. That is not a proper part of our proceedings.

Mr. Hamilton: He cannot do that if Mr. Speaker is doing his job. If the Member in the Chair is watching carefully he will ensure that the Standing Order is not abused. There are rigid rules on Standing Order No. 9 which must be accepted. I agree that the rule has been abused in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and in other ways too. However, that is not the fault of the Back-Bench Member; it is the fault of the Chair for not applying the rule more rigidly. I do not believe that to take the debate off the Floor of the House, and for the Member to be obliged to apply to Mr. Speaker in writing, would be a curtailment of the rights that the Back Bencher now enjoys.
I am glad that my first amendment to the motion on the Committee on Scottish affairs was selected. I assert the right of the Select Committee to investigate other Departments with responsibilities in Scotland. I wish my other amendment had been selected, as in it I say that the Committee should have the

right to do so. I moved a similar amendment in the earlier debate on the other Select Committees. All Select Committees should have the right to demand the presence of any Minister or paper within the Department or any other papers that they think are relevant to their investigations. The Leader of the House turned down that proposal. Indeed, the House turned it down in the earlier debate. However, that is no reason why we should not pursue the matter in relation to the Scottish Select Committees.
It is imperative that any Select Committee that is to do its job properly and effectively should have the undeniable right to demand the presence of any Minister of the Crown and the production of any State paper, or any other paper which it thinks relevant to its investigations. Time and again we have seen Prime Ministers refusing the requests of Select Committees for the presence of senior Ministers when dealing with important problems. There was the case of Mr.—now Lord—Lever. The then Prime Minister refused the request of the Select Committee that he be cross-examined. That made nonsense of the powers and rights of the Select Committee.
As that proposition for the other Select Committees was rejected, this is a wonderful opportunity for the Leader of the House to say that we should have an experiment in this matter with the Scottish Committee. Let the Scottish Select Committee have the right to demand the presence of any Minister of the Crown who has responsibilities in Scotland, or any paper relevant to the investigations, and see how it goes. If it proves a success, the experiment may be extended to the Select Committees south of the border.
I hope that the Leader of the House will give a favourable response to our request for a substantially greater number of Members on the Scottish Select Committee. In my amendment that was not selected I proposed the figure of 20. There is no magic in 20, any more than there is in the 11 proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, except that the bigger the number the greater the chance of dividing up the Select Committee into Sub-Committees.
In Scotland there are special problems. That is why we have our separate Departments dealing with education, home affairs and agriculture. I should like the Scottish Select Committee to be big


enough to enable it to divide into five or six Sub-Committees, investigating in great depth the working of the National Health Service, the educational system, agricultural policy, industrial policy, the police and housing policy. The sale of council houses would be a good subject to start off with.
If Sub-Committees of Select Committees could get to work with television, radio and the media present, it would be a marvellous process of education and information for the Scottish people. The Sub-Committees could have the power to co-opt local authority members. There is a great chance here for pioneering in open government. I wrote on those lines at some length to the Leader of the House. I hope that he will reply sympathetically.
I turn to Prime Minister's Question Time. Over the last two or three years it has rapidly become a complete farce, especially since radio broadcasts were introduced. We have reached the stage at which we should each be given a bingo number, which could be drawn out of a hat. If that number came up on a Tuesday or Thursday hon. Members could rise and speak, without any la-di-da about the Prime Minister's engagements. That would avoid much of the present nonsense and make Question Time more effective. At the moment it is a laughing stock and completely incomprehensible to the public.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. D. A. Trippier: Like many right hon and hon. Members who have spoken prior to me in the debate, I welcome the Government bringing forward the change in our procedure so soon after their coming into office. My only regret is that the suggested time limit for speeches is to be confined between the hours of 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.
It does not necessarily follow that the quality of speeches would automatically improve because more hon. Members were asked to speak, but it could be fairly said that most of those speeches would improve in quality if they were made briefer and more succinct.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member and I do not wish to come the muscle about being an old Member.
However, some of the best speeches that I have heard were from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), although I did not necessarily agree with all their speeches.
Those speeches were longer than 10 minutes. The idea that a brilliant speech can be made in 10 minutes is rubbish. Some Members can do that and others cannot. I have heard speeches lasting 25 minutes and have listened to every word, in company with many other Members, without blinking an eyelid, because I have been entranced. Those speeches had an impact on the argument and sometimes on the way that hon. Members voted, especially on non-party issues. It would be disastrous to limit speeches to 10 minutes.

Mr. Trippier: To some extent I accept the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. However he is referring to the minority. The reason for the Government's motion is that the vast majority of Members do not hold the attention of the House. Very few people can hold the attention of any audience beyond 20 minutes. There is a tendency for repetition, which devalues the argument that they intended to advance when they embarked on their speech.
The majority of Back Benchers usually try to make one specific point and to illustrate it by giving specific examples. It would be worth while if there were more points made by more hon. Members. That would lead to a wider variety of speeches and a wider variety of interpretations.
If the time limit were introduced, that would greatly increase the likelihood of hon. Members being called. It would mean that more work would be put into the preparation of speeches. I know of nothing that is more certain to ensure that an hon. Member does not do his homework, or that he prepares only a sketchy speech, than for him genuinely to doubt that he will be called, because the odds are stacked against him.
An excellent illustration of that is to hear Ministers and Shadow spokesmen deliver their speeches with a higher degree of professionalism than those


delivered by the average Member. It may be assumed that their speeches should be eminently superior and that that is why they became Ministers and Shadow Ministers in the first place. I know that the majority of hon. Members will not accept that. I venture to suggest that one of the major reasons—it may be the only reason—why the presentations of such people may appear more professional is that they prepare their speeches in the certain knowledge that they will be called.
I freely admit that the early-day motion which I tabled on Monday of last week called on the Government to limit Back Benchers' speeches to 20 minutes. I have already explained my reason for choosing that time.
I genuinely believe that very few hon. Members can hold the attention of the House, especially now that our procedures are being broadcast, invariably live. Many of those outside the Chamber and outside the Palace are bored stiff by some of the events that take place in the Chamber. In my early-day motion there was a built-in escape clause to allow Back Benchers to continue with their speeches for longer by leave of the House. That might be an innovation for the House, but it is accepted practice in many local authorities throughout the land. It is a system that works successfully. Therefore, I cannot quarrel with the Government's motion that the experimental time limit should be 10 minutes. If the Government had considered a shorter time, I should have welcomed that move.
I hope that the motion, and the others alongside it, will lead to a shortening of our sittings on occasions, especially when the House sits until the early hours of the morning. How on earth Members of Parliament or Ministers can be expected to make reasonable and responsible decisions when they have been up half the night stretches the imagination beyond the bounds of belief.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support the motion that proposes short speeches. That support will reflect credit on the House and earn the respect of those that it seeks to represent.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: The debate has undoubtedly made most of today's speeches briefer than usual. I shall do my utmost to follow suit. I wish

to deal with two issues—namely, Standing Order No. 9 procedure and the motion for the House to go into recess.
Unlike the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier), I shall not be voting for the limitation of speeches. I agree that at some stage there is a case to consider for making speeches shorter—but certainly not tonight—and to make the sort of recommendation that appears on the Order Paper. There has been a long tradition of welcoming long speeches. For example mention has been made on other occasions of the number of hours that Gladstone spoke. However, I would rather rely on the self-discipline of hon. Members.
Rightly or wrongly, there has been an atmosphere developing in the House—in my view rightly—that leads us to welcome briefer speeches. I believe that that will catch on and that Members will understand that if they are fortunate enough to be called by the Chair they will be expected to speak for only 10 or 15 minutes. However, I shall vote against the proposal to introduce a standing order giving Mr. Speaker the guidance that is set out in the terms of the motion now before us.
I consider that one of the more difficult phases of my life as a Member of Parliament is getting called by the occupant of the Chair. That is no reflection on the occupant of the Chair. Is the manner in which Members of Parliament have to try to be called by the Chair—for example, to approach Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker—the best method of carrying out our duties and trying to speak in the House? I am not sure that it is. As I understand it, there is a list published in another place of those who are to be called. Surely there is a case for that procedure and for the House to consider it. If we employed that system, we should know whether we were to be called. At least there would be a good chance of being called if our names appeared on the list. We would not have to go through the process of approaching Mr. Speaker to see whether there was any opportunity of our names being placed higher on his list. Perhaps it would be a more dignified process.
I shall concentrate on the two matters that I mentioned earlier. The procedure that we have followed for a long time is


to make speeches on the motion that the House should go into recess. I believe that that should continue. I am aware of the opposition that has been voiced. There are those who say "What is the purpose of it? The motion will be carried." It has been a rare occasion, if it has ever happened, that the motion that the House should go into recess has not been carried.
The purpose behind it is simple and clear—it is to air grievances. Some will say that these are matters lacking in substance and no doubt there are occasions when hon. Members make remarks they should not have made. On the other hand if the House goes, for example, into the Summer Recess and does not sit for near on three months, why should we not have the opportunity of putting forward our views? The opportunity is certainly welcomed by Opposition Back Benchers and I think it is welcomed on the Government Back Benches as well. On these occasions there is the chance to raise a national issue in, perhaps, a two- or three-hour debate. It is an important device which I hope we will not abolish tonight.
My principal concern is with Standing Order No. 9. This mechanism is a very important part of the rights of Back Benchers. To a certain extent, I suppose, the mood of the House can prevent abuse and, though I do not wish to make this a party point, we all know the number of applications which were made during the winter months—and who made them—for Standing Order No. 9 debates.
When an hon. Member does have the chance to make an application, as now, he can explain his reasons for wanting a debate. This is an important way of doing our business. I take the view that the Floor of the House of Commons is the most important part of our parliamentary life. I am not one of those who are now fashionably saying that perhaps the Standing and Select Committees are the most important. I believe that there is a role for both but of the two I have no doubt that the most important is the Floor of the House of Commons. I want to see the continuing right of hon. Members to raise matters by way of applications for an emergency debate.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in his usual interesting

way, complained that an hon. Member, in raising an application for a debate, might obtain unfair press publicity. I can understand that point, though when it comes to press publicity I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is really the last person to need lessons from any of us.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not abuse the procedure of the House to get it.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman does not abuse it by way of Standing Order No. 9 though whether he does so by what has been interpreted as abuse by some hon. Members is another matter. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's complaint is this. If an hon. Member has obtained what may be described as unfair publicity it is always open to any right hon. Member or hon. Member to make a press statement outside the House to put the record straight. I do not believe that, because there is occasional abuse, we should take away this very important right of Back Benchers. There are perhaps three or four emergency debates granted in the course of the year. The applications which we would like to make will never be made if the motion on the Order Paper goes through. We are all opposed to abuse. However, there is a thin dividing line between doing our parliamentary duty and the supposed abuse of the machinery of the House.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Like the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), I sat for two and a half hours in the Public Accounts Committee this afternoon. I also spent half an hour in the Selection Committee. That brings me to my first point. Every Monday and Wednesday, members of the Public Accounts Committee, because of their duties, are denied the privilege of hearing the opening speeches in debates. That is because of the current timetable.
I suggest that the Hansard report of the opening speeches in a debate should be placed in the Library, as are late-night speeches the following morning. That would give hon. Members who have been closeted in Committee an opportunity to take an intelligent interest in the debate and perhaps feel entitled to take part in it. At present it is difficult for an hon. Member who has not been


present at the beginning of a debate to speak later. The occupant of the Chair usually feels that priority should be given to those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber for the whole of the debate.
I made another suggestion when I was a member of the Procedure Committee, but this was never taken up. My suggestion should be adopted because it would save time and save the expense of the House sitting for an extra quarter of an hour at night. An opportunity should be given to hon. Members to know what is the subject matter of an Adjournment debate. The hon. Member who has an Adjournment debate should present his speech to the Table Office so that it can be printed on the Order Paper. That would mean that, if there was to be a debate, for instance, on Mrs. Jones's hospital treatment in Bangladesh we would know what it was about. Having that speech printed in advance would give the Minister all the facts so that he was better able to make an intelligent reply. The Adjournment debate would then take up only a quarter of an hour instead of half an hour.
I see that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is laughing. I would like to know what his objection is to that suggestion, because it seems a sensible way of proceeding.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was reflecting upon some of the Swiftian possibilities if we were able to replace speeches in this House in the middle of a debate by a published statement.

Mr. Costain: That is not my intention. I am talking only of the Adjournment debate at or after 10 o'clock at night. The House should not be kept here another quarter of an hour while an hon. Member makes a speech, usually on a constituency matter, which a Minister, unless he is clever, cannot answer adequately because he does not know what he is to be asked.
At one time even questions were not printed on the Order Paper. They were just asked and it was hoped that the Minister could reply. Now questions are published on the Order Paper so that Ministers have notice of them. Prime Minister's questions cause problems, because they cannot be developed.
I am also anxious about priority at Question Time. I do not know whether it is because I have had bad luck or have not known the procedure, but in my 20 years in Parliament I have never been lucky enough either to be called for a supplementary question to the Prime Minister or to have my question in such a place on the Order Paper that it is reached. I do not know whether that is bad luck or bad management on my part. We should introduce a system so that each hon. Member has priority at some time.
Hon. Members have argued for and against 10-minute speeches. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said that he liked 20-minute speeches because that gave him time to develop his argument. Samuel Johnson once apologised for writing a long letter because he had not the time to think out a short one. There is no doubt that some speeches are too long.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier) said, very clearly, that when an hon. Member knew that he had a 10 to 1 chance of being called he did not give the necessary time and attention to preparing his speech. Every new Member who enters the House is delighted to be called for his maiden speech and gives similar time and attention to future speeches. But when he finds, time after time, that he is not called, his best speeches end up in his locker.
I remember one of the Whips saying to me one day "Keep those speeches in your locker. You will be able to use them in some way on some other occasion." There is no doubt that much more attention should be given to seeing that Members have a reasonable chance of knowing whether they will be called so that they are able to concentrate more on the speech they wish to make.
For the present, I believe that we should support the 10 minute speech on the basis of doing it as a trial to see whether Members can shorten their speeches and, at the same time, get their point across to the House.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: First, I should like to pursue the question of Standing Order No. 9, because I agree with those who have objected to


the proposed change, and with many of the reasons for their objections.
Perhaps I could quote two examples to emphasise what I regard as the importance of raising such matters on the Floor of the House. I have attempted to use Standing Order No. 9 on only one occasion in 10 years. My application related to the hanging of two men in a colonial territory in the West Indies.
On that occasion I believed that it was absolutely essential that the matter be raised on the Floor of the House. In the event, my application was not granted. However, I am sure that the fact that an hon. Member could raise a matter such as that in this House ensured that the communication channels of the world buzzed with cables from the Foreign Office to the colonial territory. That might then have had some influence on events.
I am certain that had I been confined to writing a note to Mr. Speaker on that occasion—I have no doubt his judgment would have been exactly as it was in any event—it would have had no impact, because no one would have known anything about it.
On another famous occasion, a very respected late friend of mine, John Mendelson, after a fairly harsh debate on how we should proceed on the matter of the malfunctioning of the Crown Agents, raised, under Standing Order No. 9, the question of having a proper tribunal to investigate the matter. The House concurred with him and the Government were forced to have a special investigation. I am fairly certain that one of the reasons that application succeeded was that it was raised on the Floor of the House of Commons.
The mood of the House was very important in influencing Mr. Speaker in his judgment. It was the mood of the House, and the fact that it could be raised on the Floor of the House with the press present to see and hear what was occurring, that influenced the decision of Mr. Speaker on that occasion and certainly had an influence on the outcome of the debate.
It is fundamental that the greater the publicity the more likely it is that an application will be given careful consideration. I am sure that such a matter would also be given careful consideration

in private by Mr. Speaker, but the mood and feeling on the Floor of the House may also influence his judgment. I am quite sure that sweeping it away into private so that an hon. Member has to put a private notice question is unsatisfactory and detrimental.
To curtail abuse, I put down what I thought was a very fair and sensible amendment which states that an hon. Member who presents an application under Standing Order No. 9 must do so within three minutes. I think that is a reasonable time. I am sorry that the amendment was not called, because that would have avoided abuse without sweeping the whole thing away. I am in absolute agreement with those hon. Members who objected to such matters being pushed aside and merely dealt with under the private notice question procedure, because that would be quite wrong.
I very much welcome the action of the Leader of the House over Friday sittings and am grateful to him for giving the House an opportunity to make a decision on this. I agree with the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Many of those arguments were what led me to make this proposition to the Select Committee in the first place. I am very glad that some of my colleagues on that Committee took it up and that the Committee itself accepted it.
The present dilemma is that one does not know until a few days in advance what the business on a Friday will be. On the other hand, in all courtesy and fairness to constituents, one has to make commitments either for meetings or to see individuals on a Friday evening. Then one is possibly faced with a regrettable clash and the prospect of being discourteous, breaking engagements and so on, or not participating in important business on the Floor of the House. Being able to get away by 2.30 p.m. will not resolve the problem for everyone. Apparently, the train services to Nottingham are so appalling that it would make no difference to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), although it certainly would for me in respect of Sheffield, and it would for those who want to get to Northern Ireland, because of aeroplane departure times and so on. This is a valuable adjustment of our procedures,


which I hope the House will endorse tonight.
I have a slightly divided mind on the question of the Adjournment debates for recesses. The basic objection to them is an objection that was raised very cogently by the right hon. Member for Down. South (Mr. Powell)—namely, that one does not get a considered response to the matters raised. In an ordinary Adjournment debate one raises a specific issue and the Minister and the Department have to give a proper considered response to that issue. However, on the Adjournment debate for the recess, by its nature all that arises is a hotchpotch of matters, totally unrelated to each other. Some of them may be important; some may be relatively unimportant. The Leader of the House is faced with making a rambling, discursive and totally useless speech, merely saying that he is grateful to his hon. Friend or the hon. Member for so and so, for raising a certain matter and, of course, that it will be looked into because it is very important. Then he moves on to the next point. That is the very negation of what an intelligent debate should be.
On those grounds I would be somewhat inclined to support the proposition now being put, although it would be refreshing if the Leader of the House would say that if we abandon this three-hour operation—I suppose that over the course of a Session we use about 10 or 12 hours in this way—he will come up with some alternative proposition under which Back Benchers who have forgone their three hours or so will be given some other opportunity, an equivalent time, for raising matters which they regard as important.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hooley: I am already running over time a bit, so if my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall push on very quickly.
Concerning Private Members' Bills going to a Second Reading Committee, an interesting idea has been advanced. I hope that it will be pursued. Like a good many other interesting ideas, it will, I suspect, be aborted by people who want to obstruct it, and it may come to nothing. Nevertheless, I take the view very strongly that we in this House do not make proper use of the Committee

system. If Committees can be used to further non-controversial legislation of private Members I am in favour of trying it out. In any case, the provisions made are such that if the views of those such as the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) prevail—apparently he is opposed to private Members having the right to legislate on anything under the sun—there are plenty of safeguards in the proposition to block the system coming into effect.
Finally, I come to the question of short speeches. There is a total illogicality in what is here proposed, because it is suggested that those who have the good fortune to be called in the first three hours of the debate can go rabbiting on ad nauseam and the unlucky ones who have had to sit through those three hours are then firmly chopped to 10 minutes. That is absurd. We should treat everyone alike or place no restrictions on them at all.
I should have thought that there was a case for having an experiment in this matter, and that the Second Reading debate was a good choice. I shall spell that out. Debates on general policy—foreign affairs, agriculture, or whatever—will occur only once in six or seven weeks; perhaps only once in half a year. If an hon. Member feels passionately on a particular subject but is confined to 10 or 15 minutes, that is a severe restriction on him.
On the other hand, during a Second Reading debate everyone knows that there will be a prolonged Committee stage where different points can be raised and an hon. Member can speak for as long as he wishes. Following the Committee stage, there are a Report stage and a Third Reading. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for an hon. Member to confine his remarks to 10 or, more reasonably, 15 minutes. That should apply to all speakers with the exception of those from the Front Benches, who must have an opportunity to give the Government or Opposition case.
I cannot agree with the proposition as it is phrased for the reasons that I have given. It is unfair that those called to speak first can go on for half an hour, but those who have waited throughout the debate are cut down to 10 minutes. The House should experiment by giving a discretion to Mr. Speaker—not a mandatory order but a discretion—to say to


an hon. Member that his time is up and that he should sit down.

Mr. George Cunningham: I am grateful to two of our colleagues who chaired the two procedural Committees from which the House has benefited during the last three years. It is unusual for the House to have the benefit of two such Committees, but we have treated ourselves. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams) and our former colleague Mr. Sydney Irving—now in the other place—worked very hard to produce the many reports. I am sure that those who served on either of those Committees will join in that tribute.
We have not got the most important procedural motion because, although there are 18 motions before us, there is no motion to give effect to the recommendation in the so-called reform report. That is the report of 1977–78 from the non-sessional Committee about Public Bill procedure. The reform Committee did not just produce 76 recommendations and jumble them together. It endeavoured to look at aspects in an organised manner and to address itself first to the key areas of procedure from which the others flow.
That is why the reform Committee first recommended the new structure of Select Committees which has been implemented and the new procedure whereby Standing Committees considering Bills would be able to interview witnesses—Ministers, civil servants, outside interests, etc.—in the form of a Select Committee before proceeding to clause by clause consideration of Bills.
The Government have not yet brought that proposal before the House. However, I was glad to note that the Leader of the House is bringing it before Parliament before next summer. It could be argued that the Chamber must not suffer from indigestion through considering too many proposals.
The proposal about Standing Committees taking evidence is not incompatible with getting the new system of Sub-Committees going. Most of us on the reform Committee felt that the two were complementary. We did not recommend that Select Committees should have anything to do with Bills, but we felt that some of the Select Committee facilities

should be available in considering Bills. The two could go side by side, and I hope that it will not be long before the Leader of the House brings forward such a proposal.
It is in the interests of Governments and in the interests of good government and legislation generally that the unsatisfactory situation in Standing Committees should be terminated. We have all served on Standing Committees and know of the problem. There are two strong electrical forces—the political power and the inquiries of hon. Members—and in the corner of the room is a great deal of expertise. Joining the two forces is the narrow filament of the Minister's mind, and such a joining of electrical forces causes a fuse. We have all experienced the frustration of serving on Standing Committees and knowing that the information we want is available in the four corners of the room—and particularly in one corner—when we are not able to get at it. The proposal of the reform committee would have brought to an end that difficulty. I recollect that all the Conservative hon. Members on the reform Committee supported the proposal, and I hope that the Leader of the House will quickly follow that up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned the urgent need to consider the rights of Committees to summon Ministers and others, and we must at least remove the obscurity over the limitation of that power. There will be dispute as to where the right of the Committee to summon Ministers and send for papers stops, and there may be dispute as to how far that power should lie with the Committee and how far it should lie only with the whole House. However, until the matter comes before us, that obscurity will remain.
Amongst the 18 motions there are five or six that it is unnecessary to discuss in any detail or hardly at all. They relate to the jumbling up of notices of parliamentary questions in the Table Office, the order of precedence of Private Members' Bills, what to do when an hon. Member has won a place in the ballot—whether he is allowed to win another place in the ballot the following year—and the procedure for dividing the day at 7 pm. There is the obscure question of what to do when two hon. Members simultaneously present amendments to two Clerks at the


Table. The proposals before us in the motion are adequate on those matters.

Mr. English: For decades the Clerks have failed to number questions and the printer therefore did not know the correct order. The proposal is that the Clerk should number questions from 4.5 pm, which will not include the first questions in and they are usually the ones to be answered. The system would be a little more efficient if there were, so to speak, a queue by serial numbers, as if boarding an aircraft from Washington to New York. Surely it is possible to number questions serially so that an hon. Member who puts his question in first gets it answered first.

Mr. Cunningham: The Committee has looked at that and there is a recommendation before the House. I think that the recommendation before the House is acceptable.

Mr. English: It is a good start.

Mr. Cunningham: For me it is acceptable, and the House would do well to let it stand where it is at present.
Then, in ascending order of controversiality, we have the business of Prime Minister's Question Time. Even just in my nine years or so in the House, this is a hardy perennial. The truth is that none of us knows what to do in order to improve the effectiveness and acceptability of Prime Minister's Question Time. To a great extent the decisions lie with the Prime Minister of the day and not so much in the procedure of the House. That is recognised in the form of the report, and the form of the motion giving effect to the report, which is before us. All that we can do is to welcome recent tendencies by the present Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the previous Prime Minister, to answer more questions than were answered previously by Prime Ministers and to see how it goes.
I would inject only one thought of my own into the pool. We in this House are now very accustomed to the question of which notice has been given. It is arguable that it is that characteristic which gets us into insoluble difficulties with Prime Minister's Question Time.
In the legislature of Canada, for example, notice is not normally given of the question. That would be a terrible arrangement for us to have for any departmental Minister. I think that it takes away from the effectiveness of Question Time if one does not give notice. However, it is arguable that for Prime Minister's Question Time there is something to be said for it. When next we have, as we will no doubt have perhaps every two years, a Procedure Committee looking yet again at this issue, I think it should consider that possibility and see whether that, unlike all the other things that we have ever thought of, eases our problem.
I want to say something briefly and calmly on the subject of the hat. I make no apology for raising the subject. We have the motion before us. I am sure that we are all slightly embarrassed not only about wearing the hat but also about talking about wearing the hat. We have before us a proposal that instead of one hat we should have two—

Mr. English: Different hats.

Mr. Cunningham: —that instead of the rule applying only to men, which it does at present, it should also apply to women Members of the House, and that substitute hats in the form of the Order Paper should not be acceptable to the Chair. I have often wondered whether a wig would be regarded as a covering for this purpose, but have never discovered the answer.
It is my serious view that for a great national legislature to say that for the discharge of one of his functions—a tiny one, albeit one—a Member of the House is to put on his head a hat, which in practice is the comic old opera hat wrapped in a scruffy envelope under the Serjeant at Arms' chair, is contrary to the dignity of this House and of every Member in it.
It has not got the advantage that we are adhering to ancient tradition. The original reason for this curious practice was that people wore a hat in the House anyway. It was not that they went and fetched one; they had one. All they did was not to take it off. The practice about sitting down rather than standing up was equally accidental. In my view, it serves no practical purpose, because if


one sits down one's mouth is further away from the microphone than it is if one is standing up. Therefore, we have before us the amendment in the names of the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and myself, which says that as an experiment Mr. Speaker should be authorised to receive points of order during a Division according to the same rules as apply at other times.
Although this is a very funny subject, I beg the House, in the interests of dignity, to give our proposal a try. If there is a problem we can always go back to the previous situation, but for goodness sake, let us give it a try. If anyone thinks that members of the public, who watch our proceedings, see that little episode during a Division at 10 o'clock and think that it is quaint, historic and terribly British, he should talk to those members of the public. They think it is absolutely disgraceful and childish and they are right. I was interested to hear that the Government do not oppose my idea. I do not think that the Leader of the House expressed a view on the matter. I am sure that he does not give a hoot whether we wear the hat or not.
There are two proposals which relate to the rights of Opposition parties and minorities. This includes minority parties and minority groups within a party. The proposals concern the wording of the Supply motion, and the question of one extra amendment being called at the end of the debate on the Address.
On the first matter, it has been said that the present situation was an accidental consequence of a reform in our procedure which was intended to make things seem simpler but not to have this particular result. The proposal before the House, although it is open to verbal objection, which has been expressed strongly by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), is at least an improvement in substance on what has gone before. There is no opposition to the idea that the practice, which has already been adopted informally, of sometimes calling an additional amendment at the end of the debates on the Address, should be formalised; and it is acceptable.
Then one comes to the rather more controversial issues. The first of these

is the question of Friday sittings. This is a matter on which each hon. Member will vote according to his personal convenience. It so happens that it is personally very inconvenient for me, as a London Member, to consider 9.30 am sittings. But it is best that the House should arrange its sittings on a Friday according to the convenience of the majority. My guess is that the convenience of the majority would favour the introduction of the earlier time. If everyone votes tonight according to his personal convenience, the House will take the most sensible decision in the interests of the majority.
I predict that, despite what the Leader of the House said earlier and despite the form of words he decides to adopt in his wind-up speech, it will not be long before the suspension is moved beyond 2.30 pm on more occasions than it would have been moved beyond 4 pm. That is a fact of life and we must accept that there is a risk of longer hours on Fridays than would have been the case. If the House votes for the new procedure on the possibility of sending a Private Member's Bill to a Second Reading Committee it will not just be a case of the House sitting at 9.30 a.m. on Friday. There will be a strong possibility of a vote at 9.30 am. That is a prospect that few hon. Members would contemplate with equanimity.

An hon. Member: "It is better than 4 am." The metabolism of hon. Members is such that 4 am is often easier for a vote than 9.30 am on a Friday. The metabolism changes after years in this place.
I turn to the question of short speeches. We all know the irritation that is experienced about people who speak for an unnecessarily long time, especially when that happens just before the wind-up speeches are due to begin at 9 p.m. But we should look at the experience of other Parliaments. Many other Parliaments limit the length of speeches and in those Parliaments the common form is for the person to go in, take his ration of time and go out. He does not give up any of his time to another Member except in a very formal way in some legislatures. This process does not admit of the cut and thrust of debate as does our practice. I fear that if we allow the timing of


speeches to be introduced the cut and thrust of debate will be limited. That consequence can be avoided if we rely on the good sense of the House rather than on the formal rule for limiting the time.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) referred to the practice in some debates of Whips searching for hon. Members to speak, begging an hon. Member to make a 20-minute speech to fill up the time. The rule would not get rid of that because it would apply only when Mr. Speaker found that there were too many speakers for the time allotted. In the case where there are not enough Members who wish to speak the proposed 10-minute rule would not be introduced.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the case where many hon. Members wish to speak on one side of the House but not on the other.

Mr. Cunningham: My experience is that when there is a shortage it tends to be on both sides or neither.
The difficulty should be faced that if the proposal is introduced even as an experiment there is the risk that it will be extended to other stages than Second Readings. It would be disastrous if it were extended to Committee stage. I believe that the House should take these matters into consideration before reaching its decision on what is proposed to be an experiment.
There is the motion that recess dates should not be debatable. I doubt whether Back Benchers are ever wise to give up the opportunity to raise anything that suits their timing, irrespective of whether or not it is suitable for the Government. I have not been on this Front Bench long enough to forget how unwise such a proposal would be for a Back Bencher. After all, we are talking about half a day occurring about three times in the year. It is true that the Member does not get a reply from the departmental Minister but that is not always necessary for every exercise of a Member's function. Sometimes an hon. Member needs to put his grievance on the record, not just to get it into the newspapers.

Mr. David Price: It was suggested earlier in the debate that the Leader of the House could not give an adequate

reply. The Leader of the House is a senior member of the Cabinet, who take a collective responsibility. That point has been slightly ignored in the suggestion that there would be an unsatisfactory reply from the Leader of the House of the day.

Mr. Cunningham: We are all aware that if time permits, which it sometimes does—in the case of those hon. Members who speak early—the advice that is tendered to the Leader of the House comes from the same people who tender it to the departmental Minister. I do not attach great importance to the consideration. However, the House should be careful before it limits the rights of Back Benchers as compared with the Government and Front Benchers generally.

Mr. Onslow: I should like to refer to the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who described the procedure as futile. It is often quite as effective for a point to have been raised by a Back Bencher in debate and not fully answered by the Minister as it is to have had an anodyne ministerial reply. In other words, the matter hangs in the air and has to be answered at some date.

Mr. Cunningham: I agree that there is that consideration.
More important is the motion about Standing Order No. 9. It has been said that every procedure that we have is abused and some procedures are used for purposes which were never their original intention. That is the case with Standing Order No. 9. There are two uses of the Standing Order—its proper use, which results in a half-day debate, and the brief airing of a question, although it is not supposed to have its substance aired, under the guise of an application under Standing Order No. 9.
Conservative Members will remember that in all the difficulties of last winter they were often raising applications under Standing Order No. 9. Were those applications unjustified? They were certainly thought to be justified at the time and it was the judgment of the hon. Member concerned that was important. If ever the position is reached where an individual Member is not able to exercise his personal judgment about what he believes to be important—and to take


no more than three, four or five minutes of the time of the House in order to give effect to it—we have got into a bad way.
If I were looking at procedures of the House that are freely abused, I would pick out the Ten-Minute Bill as one which is abused more blatantly, more often and with greater loss of time than is Standing Order No. 9. It could be said that we had an example of that today. Hon Members produce Ten-Minute Bill applications with no hope or desire to produce legislation.
The House looked at that aspect back in 1971 or 1972, but decided not to defer the time for those applications until 10 p.m. or whatever time was suggested. It was agreed to keep the right for an hon. Member to have a little time at prime House time. The amount of time used on Standing Order No. 9 applications is sufficiently brief for the House to be justified in sticking to the present arrangement. If there is increasing abuse of its use, with much more loss of time, we shall have to look at the matter again. But the abuse has surely not gone far enough for that.
Let me make a personal confession. A couple of years ago, I grossly abused the procedure of the House to table a question in the name of another hon. Member. It was quite wrong and I apologise to the House. The House mentioned the possibility of terminating the practice by which one hon. Member can go to the Table Office and table another hon. Member's question but rightly said that it should not alter its procedures merely because I had done something stupid. The House was right.
If the abuse of Standing Order No. 9 applications goes on and becomes too great, we can look at the matter again, but it is not bad enough yet. I say to Conservative Members who felt that they were making proper use of the procedure last winter that this is not the time for any hon. Members—certainly not them—to say that having used the procedure last winter they will vote to stop others from doing anything similar next winter. That would not be acceptable and it would put Mr. Speaker in an almost impossible situation.
There seems to be doubt in the minds of some hon. Members about whether Mr. Speaker would be able to allow an application when there was any doubt about whether he would grant a half-day debate. As I read the proposal, there is no chance of that. Mr. Speaker would allow an hon. Member to make his application on the Floor of the House only if he knew from the application in private that he would be granting the half-day debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has tabled an amendment to set up a liaison committee between Select Committees. There is a liaison committee now. It is informal and it works pretty well, but there are reasons, outlined in the Procedure Committee report, for formalising the system. It is arguable that it might be better to wait until the new Select Committees have been operating for a while before setting up the liaison committee, but that is something on which hon. Members must reach their own conclusions.
The motions that we are considering are relatively trivial compared with some of the more important things that we consider, but whenever we look at procedure we should do so against the background of recognising the importance of what we do here. It is sometimes said that power has passed from the House of Commons to the Executive and even to bodies outside Parliament. There is no truth in that. The Members of the House of Commons possess now all the power they ever possessed.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No. Not since 1972.

Mr. Cunningham: No word reaches the statute book except we say so and no penny is spent by Government except a majority of individual Members permit it. No power has passed. If anything is lacking, it can only be the will of hon. Members to use that power which still rests with us.
When they elect us, the electors give us only one thing—the right to vote in the House of Commons. That is all that an hon. Member has, but it is all he needs. I believe that the public want to see their Member using in their


interests the power that has been given to him. In this Parliament the individual Member counts for more than in many other Parliaments.
We must be eternally vigilant, not least on matters like Standing Order No. 9 applications, to ensure that this stays the case. Whether the threat comes from Governments or from sources outside the House, each Member must be prepared to go to the stake rather than diminish the powers that are a trust, temporarily, in our hands. Only in that way can we ensure that the House fulfils its essential and historic function to be responsive to the needs and wishes of the millions of the electorate that we represent in this place.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is a great pleasure to reply to a debate of such high quality, so wide-ranging in its scope and important in its implications. It was brought to a fitting end by the peroration of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I found myself in agreement with nearly all his remarks.
It is a complex matter to reply to a debate in which we have been discussing 18 motions and six or seven amendments. I shall try to deal with matters as clearly as I can. I think that the most convenient way would be to go through the motions and amendments as they come on the Order Paper. It will then be possible for hon. Members to follow them.
I am grateful for the expressions of appreciation that have come from both sides that the House has been given an opportunity to dispose of a number of issues tonight. I would like to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for his generous words. I would also like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Honiton (Mr. Emery).
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton raised a specific question about the Select Committees and asked me about the back-up that will be available when they are set up. I can give an assurance that the new Select Committees, if only we can get them into being, will be well supported by the Clerk's Department. A staff of at least the

minimum strength specified as necessary by the Procedure Committee is ready and waiting for the new Committees to be nominated. The minimum proposed was one Clerk, plus one executive officer or clerical officer, plus one personal secretary. I do consider that that would be a reasonable staff. I hone that we shall be able to get started very soon.
I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) relating to recommendation 6 of the Procedure Committee. This is not one of the most difficult of the Public Bill recommendations, but it is not without some difficulty. It would result in further sittings in Standing Committee and would therefore extend the time for the passage of the Bill. The reason why it does not appear is that the rest of the Public Bill recommendations hang together with this one. If one wants to reflect on them and discuss them, one wants to reflect on them and discuss them as a whole. It is better left to the next stage of our considerations.
The first motion on the Order Paper deals with the setting up of an experiment during this Session in which Mr. Speaker would have discretion to limit hon. Members of the House to speeches of 10 minutes between the hours of 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. We have had a lively discussion, with opposing views expressed on that point. I suppose that the two opposite poles were my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who felt that it would strengthen the Chair, and the right hon. Member for Down, South, who had grave doubts about regulation by the Chair and thought that the House could control itself in these matters. That is a triumph of faith over experience. The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the difficulty of people stopping once they have got going.

Mr. Onslow: I know that I express myself badly on these matters, but I did not say that I felt that the motion would strengthen the Chair. I intend to vote against it precisely because I think that we should strengthen the Chair, instead of mucking about with motions like this.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that explanation. I misunderstood my hon. Friend's position. At short notice. I will substitute for him my hon. Friend


the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Trippier), who will conveniently occupy the other pole of the argument, since he wanted even shorter speeches than the motion suggests.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) seemed to want to speak for ever on any subject that came up. If one approaches this matter in a detached way one finds it difficult to conclude what the right course is and where the balance of the argument lies. That is precisely the reason why we have approached the matter tentatively. The suggestion is for an experiment, to be used at Mr. Speaker's discretion, to see how it works. If it does not work well it can be done away with, but if it does it can be extended.
I turn now to the vexed question of the Privy Councillors, who have haunted this discussion from time to time. As a recent Privy Councillor, I hesitate to say that their rights should be restricted. It is the only honour that any hon. Member really wants—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Well—the only honour that any self-respecting Member wants. It carries a status in this House, which is where one requires it, and it carries a modified form of priority in speaking. However, as Mr. Speaker himself has made clear, whatever privilege there is is heavily qualified by the exercise of the discretion of the Chair.
Although I understand the fears of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), I think that he has slightly exaggerated them. In any case, let us see how this experiment works—if the House wants it—and modify things accordingly.
The second motion on procedure relates to allowing the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill to be referred, in restricted circumstances, to a Second Reading Committee. The main fears in this respect were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). I might fairly describe my hon. Friend as not being an enthusiast for Private Members' Bills, for reasons that he never made explicit but that I think the House understands very well.
From the historical point of view—I speak very often from that point of view

on matters of procedure—I am much more sympathetic to the private Member than is my hon. Friend. I recall that for many years private Members controlled the business and time of the House, until the developments of the last century, when that control was taken over by the Government.
Times have changed. A private Member has been reduced in status, but there is no reason why we should not, in a modest way, tilt the balance back in his favour, as recommended by the Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough wished for an assurance that the objection of one hon. Member would be sufficient to prevent reference to a Second Reading Committee. I can give him that assurance. I hope that that will pacify him on that point.
Having done that I shall now proceed to enrage my hon. Friend by turning to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West, which seeks to substitute "any day" for "Friday" in the motion relating to Standing Order No. 66. I should be happy to accept that amendment.
I turn next to the question of Friday sittings, which has concerned the House at times today. I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that I would give a definitive statement of the Government's position on this, as there seemed to be a certain doubt about what had been said.
If the motion is carried, business on Fridays will be interrupted at 2.30 p.m. and the Adjournment will run until 3 o'clock, when the House will normally rise. Many Fridays are private Members' days, when the question of suspending the rule rarely arises. However, when Government business is being taken it will of course be open to the Government to move the suspension. It will certainly not be the intention of the Government or myself to do that except in very special circumstances of urgency and importance, where it would be the wish of the House that this should be done. I cannot abandon the Government's right to move the suspension in such circumstances but I can assure the House that we shall not arrange Government business on the basis that this option will ordinarily be used. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton.
I come to the tenth motion and the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on the question of the hat, a vexed issue. I felt that it was almost a personal vendetta by the hon. Gentleman against the hat, poor battered thing. There are two hats. I do not know whether that makes things better or worse from his point of view. There was a recommendation that one hat should be placed behind the Chair, and there it reposes.
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member said. At first sight it is rather absurd that this object should be retained in use, but I was impressed by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who said that there is a point to it. It differentiates points of order during Divisions as something rather special, as opposed to points of order raised in the normal course of debate. Secondly, it helps you, Mr. Speaker—though you would be able to pronounce better on this than I—and the other occupants of the Chair to identify the Member concerned, because he is seated and covered. With a lot of movement and many people standing it is at least arguable that the hat is a useful object.
I tend to agree with the Duke of Wellington, who said that he did not give a damn for the House of Lords. I do not subscribe to that, but mutatis mutandis that is my feeling about the hat. However, it is for the House to decide whether this relic of the past is worth preserving. I am an agnostic on the issue. I do not have the strength of religious fervour of the hon. Gentleman who wants to abolish it.
I now turn to the sixth report, which deals with the reform of the Standing Order No. 9 procedure. Here again there was a considerable division of opinion in the House. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), in a most moderate contribution, felt that the procedure should be retained in the interest of private Member's rights and that therefore the sixth report should be omitted from our approval. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr. Winnick) said that if this went, more points of order would be raised. That hardly seems possible. However, that was the threat that

was held in terrorem over us if the procedure were abolished.
On the other hand, I found very persuasive the argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South that it was essential to restore fairness in that respect; that what had developed was a one-sided arrangement, where one side of a case could be put and not the other; that it had become an abuse; and that the right to raise a question was not affected, whether it was raised in private or public. No one could suppose that Mr. Speaker's judgment would be any different on the issues of the case because of the modality of the way in which it was raised.
On balance, I feel that the arguments of the Committee should prevail. However, I do not feel that this is a clear-cut issue. There is a balance of argument. Here again, it is for the House to decide.
I come to motion No. 15, which relates to Prime Minister's Questions. It was denounced by various Members. The hon. Member for Fife, Central, with his characteristic verve, said that we might as well turn it into a bingo session, as it had become a lottery of a kind. Prime Minister's Question Time has become more and more confrontational. That is not the responsibility of any particular Prime Minister; it has been going on for the past three Prime Ministers. The previous and present Prime Ministers tried to get away from it, but they were caught m the structure of the questions. It is a case of an adaptation of Reinhold Niebuhr—moral man and an immoral society. It is necessary to change the kinds of questions that are asked if we want a different type of Question Time. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an important statement when she said that she was willing to reserve to herself policy questions which would normally go to Ministers, if those questions were sufficiently important. I hope that the House will respond to that offer, as that is the best way of bringing about a change.
As to the motions relating to Government Departments, I refer to motion No. 16, on the Liaison Committee, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. I agree with him that


there should be wide terms of reference, but I think that a membership of 25 to 30 is too large. I hope that he will feel able to ask leave to withdraw his amendment. All being well, the Government hope to be able to table a motion on this matter next week and so redeem the pledge that I made to the hon. Gentleman.
Turning to the important question of Scotland, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) raised a point about the terms of reference of the Committee, as did the hon. Member for Fife, Central. It is already open to Scottish Committees to call for evidence from London-based Departments on the exercise of their responsibilities in Scotland—for example, the Department of Energy on the generation of nuclear power at Scottish power stations. If that is the purpose of the amendment, it is unnecessary. If the purpose is wider—it is suggested that it may be—and is designed to enable Scottish Committees to question London-based Departments over the whole range of their functions in England and Wales as well as in Scotland, it is unacceptable to the Government.
I shall consider the Sub-Committee proposal in the light of the talks that I hope will take place. We must not prejudge those talks, but it is suggested that they will cover Scottish parliamentary business in the House. If a good case is made out, we shall consider it sympathetically.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Craigton for his acceptance that there has to be a Government majority on the Committee. That is normal practice in the House, and that is in accordance with precedent.
Numbers have been referred to by not only the right hon. Member for Craigton but by my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser). There are a number of amendments in a variety of forms. I consider a membership of 20 or 21 to be too large. I ask the House to accept that 11 was not a number picked out of the hat; it is a number that is basically applicable to the other Select Committees.
I was impressed with the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and I have no desire that this important development should be launched in an

attitude of controversy. In the light of what he said I shall be happy to accept that the size of the Committee be increased to 13 in recognition of the wide range of subjects that have to be covered and of the importance and size of the population of Scotland.
To everyone who has attended this has been a valuable and constructive debate. We have had to deal with three groups of proposals and reforms. There have been proposals concerning private Members and the Public Bill procedure. There have been proposals concerning Sessions and sittings, which form the last part of the main procedure report. Also included have been the 10 neglected reports, the "Cinderellas" that have been hanging about for the past four or five years. At last the House has had an opportunity to discuss them. It will now have the opportunity to come to a decision on them.
It has been sensible to proceed in these delicate and complex matters in a determined but tactful way. The first major step was taken with the setting up of the 12 departmental Committees and the two other Committees for Wales and Scotland which will exist if the House accepts the motion. Before a second major reform is initiated it will be wise to have a pause to ascertain how the first major reform has worked. However, there are three more major areas of reform that remain—namely, the public Bill procedure, which has been mentioned, the delegated legislation section, which has been mentioned, and the European legislation. Consultations will start with hon. Members and groups to ascertain whether agreement will emerge, or whether it exists in the House, so that we may be guided by it.
I fully intend to make further progress, but I must ascertain the view of the whole House. The Government fully intend to honour their pledge to put proposals before the House in due course. We have made good progress, and it is my hope that we shall continue to do so.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from '1977–78' to the end of the Question.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 236.

Division No. 87]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Graham, Ted
Patten, John (Oxford)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Haynes, Frank
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Brotherton, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Home Robertson, John
Rooker, J. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Roper, John


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kimball, Marcus
Soley, Clive


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dewar, Donald
Lyell, Nicholas
Stoddart, David


Dormand, Jack
McCusker, H.
Tebbit, Norman


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William
Thompson, Donald


Dunlop, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Eadie, Alex
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waller, Gary


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maynard, Miss Joan
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


English, Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ewing, Harry
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Winnick, David


Farr, John
Moate, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Field, Frank
Molyneaux, James
Woodall, Alec


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Needham, Richard



Forrester, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Golding, John
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. William Hamilton and


Gourlay, Harry
Parry, Robert
Mr. Nigel Spearing.


Gow, Ian






NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cockeram, Eric
Gummer, John Selwyn


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Alison, Michael
Cope, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Allaun, Frank
Cormack, Patrick
Hannam, John


Alton, David
Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan


Ancram, Michael
Cowans, Harry
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Hawksley, Warren


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Heddle, John


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Dixon, Donald
Henderson, Barry


Bagier, Gordon A. T
Dorrell, Stephen
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hicks, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Banks, Robert
Dover, Denshore
Hooson, Tom


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dubs, Alfred
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Beith, A. J
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Howells, Geraint


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Durant, Tony
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Best, Keith
Dykes, Hugh
Janner, Hon Greville


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eastham, Ken
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Blaker, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Eggar, Timothy
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Emery, Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Evans, John (Newton)
Kershaw, Anthony


Bright, Graham
Eyre, Reginald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lambie, David


Brittan, Leon
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lang, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lawrence, Ivan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawson, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Flannery, Martin
Lee, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Leighton, Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Foster, Derek
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Canavan, Dennis
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
George, Bruce
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gorst, John
Luce, Richard


Channon, Paul
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lyell, Nicholas


Chapman, Sydney
Gray, Hamish
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Greenway, Harry
McCrindle, Robert


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grist, Ian
McElhone, Frank


Clegg, Walter
Grylls, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil




MacGregor, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Pavitt, Laurie
Stanley, John


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Pawsey, James
Steel, Rt Hon David


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Percival, Sir Ian
Stevens, Martin


Madel, David
Pollock, Alexander
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Major, John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stott, Roger


Marlow, Tony
Raison, Timothy
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mates, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tinn, James


Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Richardson, Miss Jo
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Trippier, David


Mayhew, Patrick
Rifkind, Malcolm
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Rossi, Hugh
Wakeham, John


Monro, Hector
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Montgomery, Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Walters, Dennis


Moore, John
Scott, Nicholas
Watson, John


Morgan, Geraint
Sever, John
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Sheerman, Barry
Whitney, Raymond


Morton, George
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wickenden, Keith


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wiggin, Jerry


Murphy, Christopher
Shersby, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Myles, David
Silvester, Fred
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Nelson, Anthony
Sims, Roger
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Neubert, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Newton, Tony
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Normanton, Tom
Speed, Keith



Nott, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. David Waddington


Pattern, Christopher (Bath)
Squire, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions on the motion relating to Procedure (No. 1).

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78, and agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 2.9.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining motions relating to procedure, and the motions relating to short speeches, Standing Order No. 66 (Second reading committees), Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House), calling of amendments at end of debate, Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply) Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), Select Committees related to Government Departments, Scottish affairs and nomination of Select Committee on Scottish affairs (Committee of Selection).

SHORT SPEECHES

Motion made, and Question put,
That, on any day during the present session of Parliament when the second reading of a public bill stands amongst the Orders of the day, Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to take part in the debate on the second reading of the Bill, he will call Members between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between the hours of seven o'clock and nine o'clock, unless the said debate has been previously concluded, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes to resume his seat forthwith.—[Mr. St. John Stevas.]

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 98.

Division No. 88]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Altken, Jonathan
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
John, Brynmor


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Alison, Michael
Dover, Denshore
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Allaun, Frank
Dubs, Alfred
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Alton, David
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Ancram, Michael
Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Eastham, Ken
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Eggar, Timothy
Lambie, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Emery, Peter
Lang, Ian


Banks, Robert
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (Newton)
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lee, John


Best, Keith
Fairgrieve, Russell
Leighton, Ronald


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Le Merchant, Spencer


Blaker, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Body, Richard
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel
Luce, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Forrester, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Brittan, Leon
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McCrindle, Robert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Garel-Jones, Tristan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brooke, Hon Peter
George, Bruce
Macfarlane, Neil


Brotherton, Michael
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
MacGregor, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Gorst, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gow, Ian
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Grant, George (Morpeth)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Butcher, John
Gray, Hamish
McKelvey, William


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Greenway, Harry
Marlow, Tony


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grist, Ian
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Canavan, Dennis
Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Mayhew, Patrick


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Channon, Paul
Hannam, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Clark, David (South Shields)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Hawksley, Warren
Monro, Hector


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Clegg, Walter
Henderson, Barry
Moore, John


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Colvin, Michael
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Cormack, Patrick
Hooson, Tom
Morton, George


Costain, A. P.
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Murphy, Christopher


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howells, Geraint
Myles, David


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Nelson, Anthony


Dixon, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville
Neubert, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Newton, Tony




Normanton, Tom
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Trippier, David


Nott, Rt Hon John
Sheerman, Barry
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, John


Pawsey, James
Silvester, Fred
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Percival, Sir Ian
Sims, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Pollock, Alexander
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
Watson, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Raison, Timothy
Speller, Tony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rathbone, Tim
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Whitney, Raymond


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Squire, Robin
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerrry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanley, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Miss Jo
Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Steen, Anthony
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stevens, Martin
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rossi, Hugh
Tebbit, Norman



Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Tinn, James
Mr. Carol Mather and


Scott, Nicholas
Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. David Waddington


Sever, John




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Prescott, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Home, Robertson, John
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Bell, Ronald
Hooley, Frank
Proctor, K. Harvey


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Body, Richard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Browe, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kerr, Russell
Skeet, T. H. H.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cook, Robin F.
Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCusker, H.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dewar, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stoddart, David


Dormand, Jack
Major, John
Stott, Roger


Douglas, Dick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dunlop, John
Maxton, John
Thompson, Donald


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Durant, Tony
Maynard, Miss Joan
Waldegrave, Hon William


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Waller, Gary


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Moate, Roger
Welsh, Michael


English, Michael
Molyneaux, James
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Ewing, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Farr, John
Needham, Richard
Winnick, David


Field, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winterton, Nicholas


Foster, Derek
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Woodall, Alec


Golding, John
Parry, Robert



Graham, Ted
Patten, John (Oxford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Cranley Onslow and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Marcus Kimball.


Haynes, Frank

Question accordingly agreed to.

SECOND READING COMMITTEES

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 2.10 (Second reading committees) of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 66 (Second reading committees) be amended, as follows:
Line 13, at end add—
'(1A) A motion, of which not less than ten days' notice has been given, may with the leave of the House be made by the Member in charge of a private Member's bill at the

commencement of public business on any Friday when private Members' bills or notices of motions have precedence under the provisions of Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business), that the said bill be referred to a second reading commitee and the Question thereupon shall be put forthwith. If such a motion be agreed to, any Order that the said bill be read a second time which stands on the Paper for that or any subsequent day shall he discharged. No such motion shall be made before the seventh Friday on which private Members' bills have precedence and no such notice shall be given until the bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office'—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Amendment made, to leave out first "Friday" and to insert "day"—[Mr. English.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 66 (Second reading committees) be amended, as follows:
Line 13, at end add—
'(1A) A motion, of which not less than ten days' notice has been given, may with the leave of the House be made by the Member in charge of a private Member's bill at the commencement of public business on any day when private Member's bills or notices of motions have precedence under the provisions of Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of government business), that the said bill be referred to a second reading committee and the Question thereupon shall be put forthwith. If such a motion he agreed to, any Order that the said

bill be read a second time which stands on the Paper for that or any subsequent day shall be discharged. No such motion shall be made before the seventh Friday on which private Members' bills have precedence and no such notice shall be given until the bill has been printed and delivered to the Vote Office.'

RECESS ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Motion made, and Question put,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 9.16 (Recess adjournment debates) of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 193.

Division No. 89]
AYES
[10.27 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, John (Oxford)


Ancram, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pawsey, James


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Haselhurst, Alan
Percival, Sir Ian


Atkinson, David (B' mouth, East)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Banks, Robert
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Timothy


Beith, A. J.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hooson, Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rossl, Hugh


Brittan, Leon
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
King, Rt Hon Tom
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Lawson, Nigel
Speed, Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Stanley, John


Channon, Paul
Luce, Richard
Stevens, Martin


Chapman, Sydney
Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McCusker, H.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cockeram, Eric
Macfarlane, Nell
Tebbit, Norman


Cope, John
MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Dover, Denshore
Marlow, Tony
Trippler, David


Dunlop, John
Marten, Nell (Banbury)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Waddington, David


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Wakeham, John


English, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Eyre, Reginald
Mayhew, Patrick
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wheeler, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Molyneaux, James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Whitney, Raymond


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Moore, John
Wickenden, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Forman, Nigel
Murphy, Christopher
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Myles, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gourlay, Harry
Normanton, Tom



Gray, Hamish
Nott, Rt Hon John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenway, Harry
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Grylls, Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Tony Newton.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, David (South Shields)


Alexander, Richard
Body, Richard
Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)


Allaun, Frank
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clegg, Walter


Alton, David
Bright, Graham
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Ashton, Joe
Brotherton, Michael
Cook, Robin F.


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Costain, A. P.


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Browne, John (Winchester)
Cowans, Harry


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Cranborne, Viscount


Bell, Ronald
Butcher, John
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Cunningham, George (Islington S)


Best, Keith
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)




Dalyell, Tam
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rathbone, Tim


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Dewar, Donald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dormand, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Dorrell, Stephen
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick
Lamond, James
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dubs, Alfred
Lawrence, Ivan
Sever, John


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Leighton, Ronald
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheerman, Barry


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Litherland, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Eastham, Ken
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eggar, Timothy
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Evans, John (Newton)
McElhone, Frank
Soley, Clive


Ewing, Harry
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Spearing, Nigel


Farr, John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spriggs, Leslie


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sproat, Iain


Field, Frank
McKelvey, William
Squire, Robin


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Stainton, Keith


Flannery, Martin
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Major, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Steen, Anthony


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stott, Roger


George, Bruce
Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Golding, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Gorst, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thompson, Donald


Gow, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Waller, Gary


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morton, George
Watson, John


Hannam, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Welsh, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Needham, Richard
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Haynes, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Winnick, David


Hicks, Robert
Palmer, Arthur
Winterton, Nicholas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parry, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Home Robertson, John
Penhaligon, David



Howells, Geraint
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Prescott, John
Mr. Austin Mitchell and


Janner, Hon Greville
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: As a result of that Division the motion relating to sittings of the House falls. I hope that hon. Members will listen. I understand that there is some difficulty. We are missing the usual channels and I shall read not only the second but the first number of each motion on the Order Paper.

FRIDAY SITTINGS

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 9.27 (Friday sittings) of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1977–78.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

ORAL QUESTIONS

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations relating to procedure for establishing the order of oral questions contained in the first report of the Sessional Committee on Procedure of Session 1975–76.—[Mr. St. John Stevas.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations relating to precedence of Private Members' Bills contained in the second report of the Sessional Committee on Procedure of Session 1975–76.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

MISCELLANEOUS RECOMMENDATIONS

Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth reports of the Sessional Committee on Procedure of Session 1976–77, relating to the calling of amendments for Division, points of order during Divisions, Opposition motions on Supply days, business of the House motions the operation of Standing Order No. 9, ballots for Private Members' motions and Bills, and the tabling of amendments to Bills on Second Reading.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. Speaker: On this, I shall first call the amendment that deals with points of order during a Division.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "Second".—[Mr. George Cunningham.]

Question put. That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Onslow: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is in the interests of hon. Members that they should know what they are voting for and what they are voting against, may I commend to them the advantages of being attired in this way?

The House having divided: Ayes 103, Noes 194.

Division No. 90]
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Pavitt, Laurie


Alton, David
Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ashton, Joe
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Prescott, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Golding, John
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Graham, Ted
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Body, Richard
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rooker, J. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Haynes, Frank
Roper, John


Clark, David (South Shields)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Sever, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Home Robertson, John
Sheerman, Barry


Cook, Robin F.
Hooley, Frank
Silvester, Fred


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leighton, Ronald
Strang, Gavin


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Dixon, Donald
Litherland, Robert
Tinn, James


Dormand, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Douglas, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford Wed)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Watson, John


Dubs, Alfred
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Welsh, Michael


Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
McKelvey, William
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wigley, Dafydd


Eadle, Alex
Madel, David
Winnick, David


Eastham, Ken
Marks, Kenneth
Wolfson, Mark


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Woodall, Alec


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ewing, Harry
Morgan, Geraint
Mr. John Maxton and


Field, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. David Stoddart.


Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brinton, Tim
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Leon
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Michael
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, A. P.


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Brotherton, Michael
Dover, Denshore


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dunlop, John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Banks, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)
Durant, Tony


Beith, A. J.
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Dykes, Hugh


Bell, Ronald
Butcher, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Eggar, Timothy


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Emery, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
English, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald


Blaker, Peter
Chapman, Sydney
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Farr, John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bright, Graham
Cockeram, Eric
Finsberg, Geoffrey




Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Nell
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Rossi, Hugh


Forman, Nigel
Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Forrester, John
Marlow, Tony
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Nell (Banbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


George, Bruce
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gorst, John
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Shersby, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Greenway, Harry
Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Speed, Keith


Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Sproat, Iain


Gummer, John Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Squire, Robin


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Hannam, John
Monro, Hector
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moore, John
Stanley, John


Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Steen, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George
Stevens, Martin


Hicks, Robert
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Murphy, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, J.


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Myles, David
Tebbit, Norman


Hooson, Tom
Needham, Richard
Thompson, Donald


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Howells, Geraint
Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Normanton, Tom
Trippier, David


Janner, Hon Greville
Onslow, Cranley
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Waddington, David


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wakeham, John


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Palmer, Arthur
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Patten, John (Oxford)
Waller, Gary


Kimball, Marcus
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


King, Rt Hon Tom
Pawsey, James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lang, Ian
Penhaligon, David
Whitney, Raymond


Lawrence, Ivan
Percival, Sir Ian
Wickenden, Keith


Lawson, Nigel
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Wiggin, Jerry


Le Marchant, Spencer
Proctor, K. Harvey
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Raison, Timothy
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rhodes James, Robert



Luce, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyell, Nicholas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


McCusker, H.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Mr. Tony Newton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "Sixth"—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 110.

Division No. 91]
AYES
[10.51 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Clark, David (South Shields)
English, Michael


Allaun, Frank
Clark, Dr William (Croydon South)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Alton, David
Clegg, Walter
Evans, John (Newton)


Ancram, Michael
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ewing, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Robin F.
Farr, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Cormack, Patrick
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Cranborne, Viscount
Field, Frank


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Cryer, Bob
Flannery, Martin


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Forrester, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Foster, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Dalyell, Tarn
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bell, Ronald
Davis, Terry (B'rm ham, Stechford)
George, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Golding, John


Best, Keith
Dewar, Donald
Gorst, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dixon, Donald
Graham, Ted


Body, Richard
Dormand, Jack
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Douglas, Dick
Greenway, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Douglas Mann, Bruce
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brotherton, Michael
Dover, Denshore
Grylls, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dubs, Alfred
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunn, James A. (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&amp;Ew'll)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Durant, Tony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Eadie, Alex
Hawksley, Warren


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eastham, Ken
Haynes, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Eggar, Timothy
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Heffer, Eric S.




Henderson, Barry
Maxton, John
Silvester, Fred


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Moate, Roger
Spriggs, Leslie


Janner, Hon Greville
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Iain


John, Brynmor
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Squire, Robin


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Morton, George
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Myles, David
Steen, Anthony


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Needham, Richard
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Lamond, James
Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tinn, James


Leighton, Ronald
Palmer, Arthur
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Litherland, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)
Viggers, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pawsey, James
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Penhaligon, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Waller, Gary


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Prescott, John
Watson, John


McCrindle, Robert
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr. Oonagh
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wheeler, John


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Proctor, K. Harvey
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Wickenden, Keith


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wigley, Dafydd


McKelvey, William
Rooker, J. W.
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor
Roper, John
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Madel, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Winterton, Nicholas


Major, John
Sever, John
Woodall, Alec


Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)



Marlow, Tony
Sheerman, Barry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Mr. David Winnick and


Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. William Hamilton


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Shersby, Michael





NOES


Alison, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Nott, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert
Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hannam, John
Pattie, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan
Percival, Sir Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Timothy


Bright, Graham
Hooson, Tom
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Brinton, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Rhodes James, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Butcher, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Kimball, Marcus
Rossi, Hugh


Channon, Paul
King, Rt Hon Tom
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)


Cockeram, Eric
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Colvin, Michael
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Cope, John
Luce, Richard
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanley, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCusker, H.
Stevens, Martin


Dunlop, John
Macfarlane, Nell
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Marten, Nell (Banbury)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mayhew, Patrick
Wakeham, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Molyneaux, James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Monro, Hector
Whitney, Raymond


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Moore, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan, Geraint
Wolfson, Mark


Forman, Nigel
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Murphy, Christopher



Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gourlay, Harry
Newton, Tony
Mr. John MacGregor and


Gow, Ian
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: In view of that decision, it is necessary for the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to move a manuscript amendment.

Amendment made: Leave out
the operation of Standing Order No. 9".—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations contained in the first, second third, fourth, seventh and eighth reports of the Sessional Committee on procedure of Session 1976–77, relating to the calling of amendments for Division, points of order during Divisions, Oppositon motions on Supply days, business of the House motion, ballot for Private Members' motions and Bills and the tabling of amendments to Bills on Second Reading.

CALLING OF AMENDMENTS AT END OF DEBATE

Ordered,
That if, on the last day on which the motion for an Address in answer to Her Majesty's Speech is debated in the House, an amendment proposed to the said motion shall have been disposed of at or after the expiration of the time for opposed business, a further amendment selected by Mr. Speaker may thereupon be moved, and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

QUESTIONS ON AMENDMENTS

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments) be amended, as follows:
Line 3, at end insert '(1)'.
Line 8, at end add 'and
(2) on a day allotted to the business of supply under Standing Order No. 18 (Business of supply), where to any substantive motion an amendment has been moved by a Minister of the Crown to leave out a word or words and insert others the Question shall be, "That the original words stand part of the Question," and, if that Question be passed in the negative, the Question, "That the proposed words be there added" shall be put forthwith'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 18 (Business supply) be amended, as follows:
Line 161, at end add—
'(12) If on any allotted day, all the words after the word "That" of any substantive

motion have been ordered to stand part of the Question or if other words have been added in their place, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith declare the main Question (as amended or not as the case may be) to be agreed to.'—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Resolved,
That this House, taking note of the fifth report of the Sessional Committee on Procedure of Session 1976–77, relating to questions to the Prime Minister, would support Mr. Speaker in taking its recommendations into account.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

SELECT COMMITTEES RELATED TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

Resolved,
That the Standing Order of 25th June (Select Committees related to Government Departments) be amended, as follows:
Line 5, leave out 'Secretaries of State for Scotland and' and insert 'Secretary of State for'.
Paragraph 5, line 2, after 'Trade', insert 'Scottish Affairs'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Motion made and Question proposed,
That—

(1) A Select Committee shall be appointed to be called the Committee on Scottish affairs, to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Scottish Office and associated public bodies; and the Committee shall consist of a maximum of eleven Members, of which the quorum shall be three.
(2) The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding an adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the Committee appointed under this Order shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Amendments made: In paragraph (1), leave out 'eleven' and insert 'thirteen' —[Mr. Bruce Millan.]

In paragraph (1), leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.—[Mr. Bruce Millan.]

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That—

(1) A Select Committee shall be appointed, to be called the Committee on Scottish affairs, to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Scottish Office and associated public bodies; and the Committee shall consist of a maximum of thirteen Members, of which the quorum shall be five.
(2) The Committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding an adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time and
(b) to appoint persons with technical knowledge either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the Committee appointed under this Order shall continue to be members of the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

Ordered,
That no motion shall be made for the nomination of Members to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENT

11.7 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move,
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House on 22 October about the steps that we were taking to help needy families pay their fuel bills this winter. Part of this help is through the family income supplement scheme. FIS families will benefit by a £1 a week from 13 November if these regulations are given the support of the House. This complements the help being given through the supplementary benefit scheme, to which I shall refer later.
In order to make these FIS payments the approval of the House is sought to these further increases in the new FIS rates already approved and due to take effect on 13 November.
The regulations before us now provide for a further £2 increase in the FIS prescribed amounts. This will give the majority of families on FIS their weekly extra £1, because benefit due is calculated as half the difference between income and the prescribed amount. I say "the majority" because families who would already qualify for maximum FIS payments will not benefit from the increase in the prescribed amounts. Instead, they will still get their weekly extra £1, but through a £1 increase in the maximum payments themselves.
Raising the FIS prescribed amounts inevitably brings some more families into FIS who would not be entitled to it under the rates earlier agreed by hon. Members. Most such families will get less than £1 in FIS each week, in total, but they will also have the passport entitlements that FIS brings with it, such as automatic relief from National Health Service charges.
People who are awarded FIS from now on will get their extra £1 as part of their normal weekly payments. Many families already receiving FIS have already had their payment order books altered to show the rates due from 13 November according to the first uprating order which was debated in July. As this uprating will


be superseded by these regulations, slightly different arrangements will apply. To minimise inconvenience to beneficiaries and to keep our staff costs as low as possible, they will receive the weekly £1 increase as a single payment. The payment, in the form of a Girocheque, will be made up of £1 for every week that their FIS awards have to run after 13 November, in the current payment order book. Future books will, of course, carry the full weekly FIS payment—including the £1 to help with heating costs.
These FIS proposals, which will give an extra £1 each week to families in receipt of family income supplement, complement the 95p a week rate of heating addition to be paid by the Supplementary Benefits Commission to all supplementary benefit householders with a child under 5 years old, including those who do not receive it now.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his statement to the House, wider coverage of all FIS families is appropriate because, unlike supplementary benefit, the FIS scheme makes no other special provision for extra help with fuel bills. As hon. Members know, the Supplementary Benefits Commission will also be paying the 95p heating addition to supplementary pensioner householders who are over 75 years old or who have a dependant who is over 75, if they are not getting the addition now.
The extra £1 a week will add about £5 million to the cost of the FIS scheme in the year up to November 1980. It will benefit about 85,000 families, half of them one-parent families.
To avoid confusion I should make it clear that the extra £1 a week will become part of FIS; it will not be withdrawn at the end of the winter or have its value in real terms whittled down in future upratings. FIS families will make a permanent gain from the increase.
I do not wish to stray out of order on these FIS regulations, but as they form part of the wider provision to help the most needy with their fuels bills I hope that I may put them in context.
The Opposition will criticise the Government for introducing a smaller scheme than they provided last year. I repeat to the House the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Opposition,

when in government, made absolutely no provision for this winter either for a repeat of the electricity discount scheme, or for any successor scheme. There was no public commitment from their Department of Energy to continue the scheme, whatever may now be protested by hon. Members.
Despite the harsh economic situation, the money that can be made available is to be concentrated through the FIS scheme and the supplementary benefits heating addition on those most in need. We are well aware that the last Government planned to spend £45 million on their electricity discount scheme, but the provisional outturn shows a total spend of £38 million, of which a massive £4 million went on administration. The average help per family was about £7·50.
What we are doing this year is to give worthwhile help—about £50 over the year—to those in the greatest need—the very young, the very old, and working families with children. Let us not forget that after the increases in supplementary benefit heating additions at the uprating, total expenditure on heating additions, even without the extra now announced, will be running at the rate of over £100 million a year.
These FIS regulations are positive and help families in work. Whatever the Opposition's nostalgia for the electricity discount scheme, it was criticised from every quarter. FIS families will clearly gain over what they received under the discount scheme. They received a basic £5 last winter. They received a discount if they claimed it and if they had an electricity bill in their own name for over £20. That bill had to be for over £200 if the total of lump sum and discount was to equal the £52 that this further FIS increase will give them over the next 12 months.
These FIS regulations are a positive step in the right direction. As my right hon. Friend has said, we shall continue to keep under review the question of help with fuel bills. The whole question of help with heating costs embraces not only the Department of Energy and my Department but essentially the Department of the Environment as well as the Treasury. We intend to keep every aspect of this problem under close scrutiny and the House may be assured of our determination.
I ask the House to approve the regulations.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I do not think that there will be any difficulty about the House approving these regulations. Certainly the Opposition do not intend to oppose the regulations, for obvious reasons. However, that does not mean to say that we do not have anything to say about them and why they are being brought in now, and about the related matters to which the Minister has referred.
It is no good the Government trying to pre-empt what may be said from the Opposition Benches tonight by saying that no provision was made by the Labour Government. The fact is that in 1977 £12 million was made available, in 1978 it was £23 million, and in 1979—as the Minister has just confirmed—£38 million was spent in helping poor families with their fuel bills.
Of course, the Labour Government's schemes were subject to criticism. I think that it was probably only in the second week of this Parliament that I had an Adjournment debate on the problems related to the reading of electricity meters. Therefore, I shall not deny, and neither will my hon. Friends, that the schemes were unnecessarily complicated. However, the fact is that the Government are making available about £16½ million of new money, according to the Secretary of State when he made his statement the other day, whereas under the previous Government it was £38 million at the very least—and that was last winter, at last year's prices.
The fact is that there has been a cut in the help that the Government are offering the poor and the needy with their fuel bills. The Government claim that they have concentrated help, as they are doing in these regulations, on those who really need it.
When the Secretary of State made his statement he made great play of the point that a lot of money was going to supplementary benefit recipients who were school leavers. But the fact remains that the Government cannot tell us now how many recipients of the £5 were school leavers, yet Ministers claim that this is a major reason for altering the scheme. They ought to come clean and tell us

whether that is just an argument on their part for wanting to cut back, because that is what has happened.
In this matter the DHSS have been walked all over by the Treasury, the Department of Enery and the Prime Minister. If they had a policy for poor people, we would not now be dealing with these regulations. They do not mention anything about fuel bills or help with fuel. All that they do is to replace provisions which the House approved in the summer, on the day after they had come into force. In other words, those provisions are abandoned after one day.
If the Government had come in with a policy of helping the poor and the needy, they could have put this matter right when we dealt with the first regulations, instead of having to present these regulations, in which no mention is made of fuel bills or help with fuel.
In the background note provided by the Government there is reference to the fact that the extra £1 is for fuel bills. The Minister has asked for the indulgence of the House and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will bear with me, because the debate is a little wider than the detail of the regulations. Sticking to these regulations, however, the Minister tells us that the majority of 85,000 families will get the £1 a week. Not all of them will get it. It is well known, of course, that not all families that are eligible draw FIS anyway. The Minister's estimate is 75 per cent. On that basis, 27,000 families do not draw FIS, and they will not get this £1 a week.
What will Ministers do to increase the FIS take-up? It just is not good enough to say "We are concentrating the help where it is needed, which is more than you did under the previous Administration," and then at the same time, with another voice, to say "Of course, only three-quarters of those whom we think ought to get this help will be getting it in the first place." About 27,000 poor families will be missing out on this benefit.
The Government have been rightly attacked from all quarters for the Secretary of State's announcement. I am surprised that he had the gall to come to the House and make it. One would almost have thought that the Government were offering a new benefit. Age Concern


is a modest charity that is not known for putting in the boot, but it has done that to the Government on this occasion.
The people who will lose out are the millions of pensioners who were getting rent and rate rebates. They will no longer be able to go to the post office with their electricity bills and receive a discount. If they do that this winter, the post office will turn them away. The millions who have missed out may not yet realise it, but in the coming winter Ministers will have to face these complaints. There is less help for the poor and elderly under this Government.
I accept that the Labour Government's schemes in the past three years were ad hoc. They were never announced until after the Summer Recess, and the announcement could not have been made this year after the Government's defeat in the vote on the motion of confidence. Financially our hands were tied. This Government cannot, therefore, bemoan the fact that there was no provision for such a scheme. Had the Labour Government remained in office, we should certainly have spent as much as or more than last year, and that would amount to about £53 million with the current rate of inflation.

Mr. John Heddle: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the electricity discount scheme was announced in 1976, 1977 and 1978 and was not announced in 1979, before the vote on the motion of confidence in March?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member entered the House only in May, and if he checks back he will discover that such announcements were always held back until after the Summer Recess. The scheme changed each year. We wanted to increase the amount spent and to simplify and extend the scheme. We did not want to cut back on the help that had already been offered. I admit that there was always a problem as to which Department carried the expenditure. In this Government that has clearly been a major problem. No Department wanted to carry it and that is why these Ministers have been walked all over.
We put more money into the scheme each year. The enormous rise in energy costs between 1976 and 1977 created the

need for the scheme. With the help of the supplementary benefit system and the uprating of pensions we hoped that eventually there would be no need for the scheme. This Government, however, are planning to cut back on pension increases. In the years of rising costs it was necessary, before the onset of winter, to have such an ad hoc scheme, but eventually we hoped to do away with it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Tories criticised the Labour Government for announcing these schemes too late. It is therefore odd to expect the scheme to have been announced way back before the election.

Mr. Rooker: That is correct. The Labour Government were criticised by their Back Benchers for bringing in the schemes late in the day. They have never been announced as early as March.
Family income supplement is a system where the State subsidises mean employers. If people were able to earn a decent wage, it would not be necessary, and I should like to see it abolished. We should have decent wages and we should not then require such State handouts. However, the Government are now building on the State handout that now exists, which goes only to the wage earner, to cushion the bad employer.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: As a new Member with 20 years' service in a great city, perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman to be even more patronising. First, if the Socialist heart is so big, and is so concerned with the issues that face us, why is it that only four of his hon. Friends are present to defend the downtrodden masses? The hon. Gentleman also talked about miserable and mean employers. Does he agree that the only way in which miserable and mean employers can afford to pay is if they earn something in the first place? The problem that faces the country is not mean employers, but the ability to earn a profit. The hon. Gentleman may talk about a new hon. Member daring to raise a point, but he forgets that only four of his colleagues—who are supposed to be the only hon. Members who have compassionate hearts—are here to express that fact.

Mr. Rooker: I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that


the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Heddle) will accept that in no way was I being patronising. I was giving a historical answer to the factual question that he asked.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) does not have a lot of experience of the low paid, but some of those people are employees of the State. Some are policemen or firemen and some work for the DHSS. Therefore, the issue of profit does not come into it. The point is that they should get a decent rate for the job. So long as this scheme remains in being we shall not get the correct wage rates for the low paid in society, be they working for the private employer or the public sector. I and my hon. Friends are ashamed that people working for the public sector have to resort to a scheme such as FIS, and, of course, the Government are building on it.
The Minister said that the scheme was now permanent and would be part of FIS. However, FIS represents only £5½ million out of a total of £16½ million. Will the arrangements covering other people be permanent? What will happen when the uprating for next year's FIS takes place? Will there be an extra input for any increased cost of fuel? Although the regulations do not mention help with fuel bills, will families get help with their fuel bills in later years? The Government must answer these points, because they have cut back on help for the poor and needy. While some people will get considerably more than they did, it will be only a few tens of thousands compared with the 3½ million to 4½ million people who were helped under the previous Labour Government's schemes.
I understand that only 345,000 people will receive help under the FIS regulation, and that is why I want to know what help will be given under the other schemes. Will that help be continued, as is claimed? I do not think that there will be extra help with fuel bills each year for FIS recipients. That is the whole point of the exercise. How will Ministers separate the help given to FIS recipients with regard to fuel bills?
These regulations and the Secretary of State's related statements last week mean a cut in help with fuel bills for the needy in this country. If it is an average winter

it will be cold comfort for the millions of pensioners below 75, for pensioners who have only rent and rate rebate, and it will be cold comfort for those who are eligible for FIS but do not receive it. That is a crucial point that the Minister must answer.
The Government have criticised us because our scheme involved a 10 per cent. administration cost of nearly £4 million. We worked hard to try to get the benefit across to those who needed it. What will the Government do about getting the FIS take-up increased? Will they just sit back and accept the fact that there will always be a large minority—25 per cent.—who will never receive FIS, who do not know about it and who do not apply? The Government must tell us their plans, and admit that the scheme will help far fewer people.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I suppose that, from the Opposition Benches, one has to welcome these regulations, in that it was only a few days ago that there was some doubt whether there would be any help with fuel costs this winter. However, it seems most disappointing that the Government's total package is so meagre.
It is not much help to those in greatest need for us simply to compare what the last Government did with what is proposed by this Government. What people are interested in is how much help they will receive. As the winter goes on they will realise how disappointing the scheme is. Even the few small groups which have been selected for special help will find the scheme not particularly fair or helpful in its application.
In discussing any help with fuel costs we have to look at two aspects—the resources which a family can spend on fuel and the fuel needs of a family. This scheme, as it affects old-age pensioners and those on family income supplement, takes into account the income of the family to a certain extent, but does not take into account the heating needs of the family. There is some small provision for those on supplementary benefit in that help goes to those families with children under five. The FIS provisions, however, do not help those families in greatest need, namely, those where children are at


home all day with the result that heating costs are likely to be high.
For many people the problem with heating costs is that they are trapped in accommodation which has high heating costs built in. This is the major problem. I can think of many of my constituents in Stockport who would like to help themselves in solving the problem of high heating costs. They could do this if they could choose their own accommodation. What they would particularly opt for is accommodation with a fireplace Then they could help themselves by searching round for old wood or anything else which they could burn. Because they are trapped in all-electric flats, or in district heating schemes, or in homes with gas heating, they have no choice. Society has committed them to high heating costs. This year, however, society is to give them no help.
One advantage I could see in last year's scheme was that it picked out those who were forced to live in all-electric housing and said that they should receive extra help because society had committed them to such costs. This scheme makes no such provision. Those living in all-electric flats can save only by being disconnected or by voluntarily cutting back on electric heating and using a paraffin heater. We have already debated the increase in paraffin prices which makes this form of heating less attractive for people. It is most disappointing that the Government have not looked at the needs of different groups of people and said that because society has condemned certain groups to live in high heating cost accommodation it ought to give them extra help. As the winter goes on I feel sure that many more of my constituents will come to me, begging me to persuade the Stockport housing department to re-house them, not because they are dissatisfied with the housing, but because they are condemned to a system of heating for which they cannot pay. I hope that the Government will reconsider all of their aid and in particular the plight of those in all-electric accommodation.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Frank Field: I gather from those who like to indulge in delivering sermons that the reason for beginning one's speech with a text is not

only to concentrate the mind of the speaker on what he should be delivering but to aim the message home at those who will most benefit from receiving it.
It is appropriate tonight to begin, not with a biblical text, but with a quotation from what the Minister herself said earlier this year after she had become the Minister. She told the House—
I shall not rest when it comes to a question of helping elderly people who may suffer from the cold this winter."—[Official Report, 24 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 332.]
This was a key policy commitment from a new Tory Government.
From that flow a number of key questions. First, given what the Government are doing to help poorer people to meet their ever-escalating fuel bills, particularly the poor wage earner—because that is what we are considering this evening—do we need to congratulate the Minister tonight, or do we need to probe her a little further about how effective this measure is?
In many ways it is a pleasure for me, as a Member who represents a constituency bordering the Minister's constituency of Wallasey, to say that locally she is thought of as a very good constituency Member. However, if we consider what the Government are doing for poor people in Wallasey this coming year with the Minister as their protector, a slightly different picture emerges. Last year, under a Labour Government, 7,900 people in Wallasey were helped with their fuel bills. Under the measures being commended to the House tonight, only 540 people in Wallasey will be helped with their fuel bills this winter. In other words, comparing the record of the Labour Government with what will be done by the Tory Government, about 7,300 poor people in Wallasey who were helped with their fuel bills last year will not be helped with their fuel bills this year. That is the result for them of how the votes were cast at the general election earlier this year. It is relevant not only to Wallasey. It has its effect on Birkenhead and every other constituency.
The first question is: who is getting help? The easy answer is: many fewer than last year.
Even if we accept that the Tory Government are concentrating help on fewer people, are they concentrating it on those


in the greatest need? Here we need to consider those who are claiming supplementary benefit and those who are claiming FIS. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have the chance to debate tonight the supplementary benefit changes, but it is relevant to consider them along with FIS. The Government are saying that the most vulnerable of the poorest on supplementary benefit are those aged 75 and over. However, the only national survey that has been done on hypothermia—the very important study by Malcolm Wicks—shows that over half of those who are vulnerable and who are at risk from hypothermia are under 75—that is considering merely those over pensionable age. So, taking one criterion, it is just not borne out by the facts that the Government are concentrating help on those in the greatest need—the most vulnerable of the oldest pensioners.
I turn to the second group—the low wage earners. We are told that this mechanism of linking the benefit to FIS will ensure that those in greatest need are helped under the new Tory Government's scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for releasing figures at Question Time this afternoon on the number of poor families below and up to 10 per cent. above the supplementary benefit level. For the purpose of this analysis, let us exclude the supplementary category. From the Minister's figures we find that there are 200,000 families below the supplementary benefit level and a further 140,000 families between that level and 10 per cent above. That amounts to a total of 340,000 vulnerable and very poor families, the vast majority of whom earn their poverty. That is the group which we can compare with the FIS group who will be lucky enough to receive help under the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has said, that group numbers about 75,000. Therefore, on the second criterion, whether we are helping the most vulnerable in work, we have to conclude that we are helping only 75,000 out of a total of 340,000.
Why are these changes being brought about? The strategy is clear. Shortly after May of this year the Labour Party began the general election campaign which will decide how votes are cast in five years' time. The Conservative Party has a clear strategy on how growth should

be achieved in the country, whereas the previous Labour Government had no strategy on the matter. The Tory strategy can be expressed briefly. It is that the country will achieve economic growth by making society more unequal. One look at the last Budget shows the extent to which that philosophy is being carried out. The poorest 10 per cent. of wage earners picked up 2 per cent. of the tax cuts, whereas the richest 7 per cent. picked up 34 per cent. We shall be watching to see whether growth is achieved and, if so, whether the poor will be the main beneficiaries of that new-found wealth. The reason why the Tories are cutting public expenditure and dismantling the Labour Government's scheme is that they believe that it is important to reward the rich because that will result in growth.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I find the hon. Gentleman's remarks extremely interesting. In the careful calculations that he has carried out, has he made a computation of how much it would cost to provide the number of people who were covered under the previous Government's scheme with the sort of concentration which the present Government are suggesting?

Mr. Field: I had hoped that certain parliamentary questions would have been answered by now—they have not been. Otherwise, I might have been in a position to provide the hon. Gentleman with an answer. It is important to get the answer to that question.
There are two immediate questions which should be asked of the Minister tonight. The House should ask the longer-term question how, over the next few years, when fuel prices will double in real terms, the poorest in the community will be protected. I regret that the House will not be dividing on the issue of changing the FIS eligibility limits, because the Division would be one where the public mind would be concentrated wonderfully on how mean is the administration scheme. Prior to the operation of these provisions, a large number of families will have applied for FIS. Will the Minister give an undertaking that those who applied under the old regulations and were found to be ineligible will be followed up and told about the new eligibility rates? We know that large numbers of poor families depend, in


deciding whether they are eligible for such benefits, on knowing whether their neighbours are eligible, claim and receive benefit or have claimed in the past and been refused. Will the Minister undertake to mount an advertising campaign on commercial television and in the popular press to tell people about their right to FIS and the new eligibility levels in the heating allowance that will come with claiming?
Although it is late, I hope that we shall take a few minutes to turn our minds to the future. It would be dishonest for my hon. Friends and me to say that we had all the answers to the problems of fuel poverty. I was reflecting earlier that until recent years one could prophesy which people would be poor. They would be those in the "stages of dependency"—those who had children, were unemployed or sick or were old. We now live in an age in which poverty for many families is caused by rising fuel prices.
There are a number of considerations to put on the agenda if we are to move away from the mean scheme that the Government are commending or the slightly better scheme that the Labour Governmen operated in the past three years. Neither is satisfactory, though the previous scheme was more effective.
I hope that when thinking about how to tackle fuel poverty we shall not look only at the size of fuel bills and debts. There is a difference between the attitudes of young and old people. Young people, thank goodness, put the fuel on, particularly if there are young children in the home. I know from experience, not only from those who come to my surgery but from a wide spread of people throughout the country, that old people are fearful of running up debts that they cannot meet. Their needs for fuel are disguised because they do not run up the enormous fuel bills that are incurred by families with young children. When estimating the need for families, old and young, to meet their fuel bills, I hope that we do not take a crude gauge by considering only those in massive debt.
It is clear from the evidence possessed by poverty organisations that there are vulnerable groups—the very old, who are partly helped by the Government's scheme, and those who have to remain home during the day. The latter category

does not consist solely of those with young children. There are considerable numbers of people who nurse elderly or sick relatives and they will not get any help from the scheme, even though they are performing a tremendous feat for the community and are providing effective community care. They got help from the previous scheme, but they will get no assistance from the new scheme.
Other vulnerable groups are those living in homes that are difficult to heat and those who are trapped in all-electric households. When we consider the long-term policies for tackling the new cause of poverty, which will grow in importance as the real price of fuel doubles in the next decade or so, we must take those matters into account.
I started my speech, which I hope has not sounded too much like a sermon, with a quotation from the Minister. I end with another. In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the hon. Lady said:
I promise … that the Government will give all these issues the consideration that they deserve to help those who will be in need through the winter, whatever the costs of fuel."—[Official Report, 27 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 1312.]
The sad aspect of our debate is that that commitment has been totally ignored. The scheme has been brought forward not because it is the most effective way of helping poorer people to meet their fuel bills, but because the needs of the poor have again been subjected—as they always are, whichever Government are in power—to the main economic strategy of the ruling party.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Frank Haynes: This is another tragic day for the House. There will no doubt be tragic days in the future. We are discussing a problem that particularly affects the lower income groups. I represent a constituency in Nottinghamshire. Since the election, there have been statements by Government Ministers on helping the elderly with their fuel bills. But elderly people complain at my weekend surgeries that they will not be catered for as they were under the Labour Government. Government Ministers, and county councillors in Nottinghamshire, which is Conservative-controlled, go on repeating that they care and that theirs is a caring party. That is a sick joke.
The Government will put people in their graves if this winter is similar to last winter. Conservative Members can shake their heads. They do not know what happens at the level of life to which I refer. I have experienced it. I come from it. I know what it is all about. Hon. Members can say what they like. I intend to get off my chest what I want to say. Hon. Members are again shaking their heads. The recent Budget, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred, dealt with handouts for the rich. This is what it is all about. This is the cost—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It is right that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) mentioned the matter. I allowed him to continue with his speech. But it has nothing to do with these regulations

Mr. Haynes: I apologise and I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I repeat, however, that elderly people in my constituency will suffer seriously under the proposals being made by the Government tonight. The message I will take back to my constituency this weekend is that the Government are not prepared to help those people when they are in need but intend to allow them to pass away. If there is another winter like last year, there is no doubt that many of the elderly and those in the low income groups, receiving no benefit from the proposals in these regulations, will suffer—like many more people—from the Government's policies.

11.55 p.m.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to some of the questions raised on the regulations. I am sorry that Labour Members have not been able to give them a more enthusiastic welcome—

Mr. Rooker: What about the Tories?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friends are very happy with the FIS regulations. They expressed that point of view very loudly when I sat down—but perhaps that is too long ago for the hon. Gentleman to remember.
I do not doubt the sincerity of all those, in the House and outside, who have voiced concern about families who

will not be specifically aided by the measures announced for this winter. But I fear that they have seriously overestimated the virtue of last year's scheme. Some of them, indeed, were markedly less enthusiastic about that scheme when it was in operation and when the House discussed it. Many critics of this year's package are criticising with no regard to the state of the economy or the strict discipline that any Government must now follow to improve the economy for the future.
The electricity discount scheme was cumbersome, as everyone has said. It was inefficient. Most important, it was not very generous to individual families. The average amount paid out was £7.50. This winter's scheme will give substantial amounts of cash to families most in need. What is more, they will get this help whatever fuel they use. One of the major difficulties with the electricity discount scheme is that it was precisely that—and the only additional money was the £5 paid to supplementary beneficiaries, regardless of their age or their responsibility for heating costs.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mrs. Chalker: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue now, but if I do not cover his point, I shall be glad to give way later.
I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about FIS take-up. Since the introduction of FIS we have had a good deal of experience of advertising the scheme. It is essential at the time of an uprating that we have sound advertising on television, if the number of beneficiaries is to be raised and then to remain at a satisfactory level throughout the year.
It is easy to do the advertising when something is new, but television advertising, which is probably the most effective—along with other media—cannot continue indefinitely. However, I have already had specific discussions about this worrying 75 per cent. take-up. We shall be looking at all reasonable ways of improving it—particularly among single-parent families, many of whom do not claim the increase they should.
This is very much on my mind, and we shall see what can be done. However, each year the figure gets a little better,


so far as I can tell. The more that we can talk to lower-paid families about FIS the better. Perhaps I should repeat that, for a family with one child, the prescribed upper limit on earnings under these regulations will be £56. That is a fair amount and a single parent need work only 24 hours in a week with earnings of under £56 to benefit.

Mr. Field: This is a simple question, although the hon. Lady is trying to make out that it is difficult. Will she or will she not have an advertising campaign on television to get this information over to people—not only those who do not claim but the large numbers who claimed previously, and who will be eligible under these regulations? Yes or no?

Mrs. Chalker: The answer is that an advertising campaign is planned to start. I am sure that the rates will be put on the screen. It will alert those who may have tried to claim previously. The increase of £2 in the prescribed amount will affect a fairly small number. There will be some, however, and they should be alerted by the television campaign that will occur at the time of the uprating from 13 November.
I was interested in the argument earlier in the debate about whether funds had been set aside for a fuel scheme for this winter. If the hon. Member for Perry Barr talks to his right hon. Friend the former Chief Secretary I am sure that he will let him in on the secret. It is perfectly clear that the last Government set aside no funds in this financial year for the provision of a fuel scheme this winter. I am sad to say it. Many have pointed out to me that that was because it was an election year, and whatever happened it was not as vital as in previous years when we were awaiting an election. I am not so mean as to think that that was the only reason. I know the main reason. It was the one to which I referred in opening. Any Government faced with an economy in the state in which ours is would be forced to take very strong measures to avoid national decline.
However much dispute there may be among the hon. Member's right hon. and hon. Friends, it is clear to me that no money was set aside for any fuel scheme when this Government took office.

Mr. Rooker: That must be nailed. Whatever the former Chief Secretary may or may not have said, the former Secretary of State for Energy has confirmed that his Department would have made available the money to fund the scheme for this winter.

Mrs. Chalker: I hate to remind the hon. Gentleman, but no matter what an individual departmental Minister decides he wants to put forward it does not go forward without the blessing of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. The assertion of the former Secretary of State for Energy simply does not match the facts of public expenditure projections, and neither was it sustained by the television campaign that will occur Labour Party was in Government.
The hon. Member for Perry Barr also spoke of FIS being a subsidy to mean employers. I must remind him that the levels that are now available to lone parents are quite high for short-time employment. I realise that those who can get only short-time jobs and are on low wages are in difficulty. But families with children receive child benefit in addition to the family income supplement. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is relevant. Unless firms are allowed by other aspects of the economy to move ahead and create jobs they will not be in a position to pay their work forces more.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to something I said in replying to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in a debate earlier this year. I said that I would not rest when it came to helping the elderly. That is true. I made that comment in my opening remarks. I said that it was not just a question of what the DHSS and the Department of Energy did, but that it was also a matter for the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. I added that we intended to keep every aspect of the problem under close review and that the House could be assured of our determination to do so. What I am anxious to do, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to seek better ways of reaching the poorest elderly and the poorest with young children. That is what we have tried to do within the firm limits set for us in the scheme this year.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) rightly spoke about the difficulties of many families in housing accommodation with unsuccessful heating schemes. I think that we might fairly call them that. This is a matter that every Government Department must examine. It is a problem, because such families use a great deal of energy for little relief of cold. The hon. Gentleman has made that point on previous occasions. I can assure him that I am very conscious of the issue, and that I shall continue to keep it under review, as my right hon. Friend said when answering questions on the statement last week.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Because of this difficulty, there should be some provision in the scheme giving most help to those who are committeed to the highest-cost fuels, particularly electricity.

Mrs. Chalker: I accept that some families in certain types of accommodation have this problem, but the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the reasons for giving heating additions are not simply the health conditions of the family but can be the type of heating appliances in the household and the size, dimensions and general unsuitability of old rooms for modern living. Therefore, through the heating additions of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, there is already something built in. I agree that there is a problem for people who are not recipients of supplementary benefit. This is a matter that needs wider and longer consideration than we have been able to give it.
I do not want to make a meal of the regulations, with which the hon. Member for Perry Barr was kind enough to say the Opposition were in agreement. It is important to realise that the size of bills and the fact that the elderly are fearful of debt—and therefore do not turn on heating—are the underlying reasons why we must concentrate the available resources on those most in need.
I hope that as time goes by we shall learn more from modern science to help deal with the sorts of problems to which the hon. Member for Birkenhead referred. However, I should be in error tonight, on the FIS regulations, if I went too far down that path and strayed on to the territory of colleagues in other Departments.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned other people with special needs, people who were at home during the day, nursing elderly and sick relatives. Clearly, that is much cheaper than the relatives being in care in an institution—and much nicer for them and their families. That is well understood. The ways in which they can be helped will depend on their individual circumstances. There are various ways in which they may be in receipt from time to time of a totally different benefit, which they choose to use to help with additional heating.
When we look at the total problem of a scarce energy resource and the difficulty of paying for it, we see that families with young children, families in low-paid work, are among the most needy. Among the FIS families are some of the poorest families in Britain. We also know that there are others on the margin, and there is a worry about them.
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that when FIS is awarded it is awarded for a full 52 weeks. If in the interim period there is an increase in wages, that does not immediately mean that the family loses the benefit of FIS; it continues unabated until the end of the 52 weeks.
I am sure that the families that we are talking about, the FIS families, who, by definition, show a great determination to work and support themselves, deserve this help, that we are right to raise the prescribed amounts under the regulations, and that we are right to ensure that the maximum amount is raised for those who are near the top—in fact, for all, but it applies most to those who are near the top.
We shall keep all the matters that have been mentioned under close review. Heating costs must be kept under close review. We cannot do more at present. I commend the regulations to the House as a good starting point, and one that we should support.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That the draft Family Income Supplements (Computation) (No. 2) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.

MATHEMATICS TEACHERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

12.11 a.m.

Mr. David Madel: I welcome the opportunity of having a short Adjournment debate on the problem of the shortage of teachers of mathematics in secondary and primary schools. I begin by saying something about the scale of the problem and the vital need for the subject to be taught well by adequately qualified teachers who are well able to teach. We have such a need for new skills that unless we teach mathematics well at an early age there will be another reason for Britain being unable to keep up with its competitors in the acquiring of new skills. As life becomes more and more complicated and technical, there is an additional need for mathematics to be taught well from early years so that our citizens can generally cope with the problems of life.
As a former vice-president of the Institute of Mathematics said some two years ago,
Mathematics is an art and a language. The earlier it is well started the better, for absorption takes place over the years almost subconsciously. But it has to be learnt step by step.
The problem did not start on 4 May 1979. It has been with us for some time. It has been growing in seriousness and intensity. In an answer that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave on 27 July, he was able to tell me that 29·5 per cent. of those teaching mathematics in secondary schools—I stress secondary schools—in England and Wales did not have a qualification in the subject. In other words, nearly one-third of those teaching mathematics at that time were not qualified to do so.
There is no reason to believe that the situation has improved. Indeed, rather the reverse is the trend. It is a matter that is growing more and more serious. It was coming to light as a serious problem about two and a half years ago, when The Times, which I am glad to say will be back with us in 10 days, referred on 18 February 1977 in a headline to "Appentices taught basic maths". The article stated:

Business has a poor opinion of modern education.
The article referred to Newcastle. One passage reads:
Some of the city's big engineering and shipbuilding companies are introducing remedial teaching in mathematics and literacy in their training schemes.
That was just over two years ago.
A mere two months later, on 22 April 1977, a headline appeared in The Times Educational Supplement, which read:
Far too many bad maths teachers".
The article stated:
The failures of modern mathematics teaching were caused more by the low calibre of teachers than by the contents of syllabuses.
That was said by Dr. Edwin Kerr, president of the Mathematical Association.
The then Government in 1977 were finding pressure on them to do something about an increasing problem. At that time the tenth report of the Expenditure Committee for 1976–77 appeared. The date of its appearance was 21 July. The Education, Arts and Home Office Sub-Committee considered the attainments of the school leaver. In paragraph 59 the committee states:
We heard more statements about mathematical competence or lack of it than about any other school subject. The CBI described it as the issue most frequently mentioned by their members.
Paragraph 65 states:
As if to compound the problem, we were told of two other areas of concern. First of all, the shortage of qualified maths teachers exists on a horrifying scale.
In paragraph 70 the committee recommended that the
Secretary of State should set up an inquiry into the teaching of mathematics.
That was done by the previous Government. They set up the Cockcroft inquiry, which, we are told, will report in 18 months' time. I think, therefore, that this is a relevant time to raise this subject. If the inquiry is to report in the spring of 1981, it is relevant for us to know whether there is to be an interim report and what progress the inquiry is making.
In a press statement, the DES said that written evidence had been asked for under eight headings. Two of them, "Mathematics required in employment" and "The mathematical demands made on adults in daily life", concern me and I should be interested to hear from the


Minister whether we have much information on these aspects.
The inquiry was widely welcomed by the press. The Guardian of 15 March 1978 said:
The inquiry into teaching mathematics announced by the Government yesterday is long, long overdue.
The Economist of 18 March 1978 said:
Part of the fault lies with teachers. Too few of them—particularly in primary schools—are qualified in "O" level passes in maths… But part of the fault lies with teaching methods".
That sort of press comment, from the education sections of our newspapers, on the subject has rumbled on. Not all the stories are good and not all of them have necessarily been proved.
But there was one particularly horrifying story in September of this year in The Daily Telegraph, which said that the lack of mathematics teachers meant no mathematics for a year. That headline referred to an education committee meeting in Bristol where one of the councillors pointed out that pupils aged 11 to 12 at two comprehensive schools would be given no mathematics lessons for a year because there were not enough teachers. We were told that there would be an inquiry into that. The councillor who mentioned the case went on to say:
It is a national problem and I wanted to draw attention to it.
She can say that again.
We do not know the outcome of that inquiry. What we do know is that one month later, on 7 October this year, it was reported in The Observer that the inspectorate had given a check list of mathematics that should be mastered by all 11-year-olds. The list includes addition, subtraction, multiplication and the division of whole numbers. In other words, there is evidence that the inspectorate is becoming more and more worried about this problem. Can the Minister say whether the Cockcroft report will be published in 1981, or is there any chance of its appearing earlier?
On 18 April 1978 I asked a question of the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mrs. Shirley Williams. She said that some 240 teachers had been recruited into the special scheme set up by the previous Government for retraining courses in mathematics for qualified teachers who were not qualified

to teach mathematics. It would be interesting to know what the current figures are and whether they are on the increase.
Do we know, from the total number of people who teach mathematics, how many of them have qualifications in O—and A—levels? I draw the attention of the Minister to DES circular 978, paragraph 11. It states that
A compulsory course in mathematics to bring students up to the standards normally required on entry to training is sometimes advocated for inclusion as part of the BEd course.
The then Secretary of State said that this arrangement would not be appropriate. She said that it would overload the timetable on the degree course and import into it subject matter which should be covered before entrance to training. Is that the view of the present Government? That was a pretty firm statement in 1978.
What is the position now? I end by making two or three suggestions as to what might be done. First, I do not think that it is possible for teachers, full- or part-time, to spend a whole year away from school. One looks with interest at projects such as that at the Cranfield institute of technology, which in July sent a special team to help the Sunderland education authorities in retraining and refresher courses for teachers. Can other institutions do what Cranfield has done? Is the Department able to fund such schemes or to help in any way?
As we move towards metrication, what extra help is being given to teachers? The primary schools present a special problem. The figures that I quoted from the answer which I received on 27 July do not refer to the shortage in primary schools. I suspect that the shortage is worse in such schools. The teachers least able to teach mathematics often teach pupils who find the subject most difficult. Flow do we get out of that spiral and difficulty?
The Times of 15 March 1978 stated:
The number of graduates in maths has almost doubled in the past ten years. But lamentably few of them ever return to the classrooms as teachers. Very often, in fact, pupils are bad at maths because their teachers are.
That is the heart of the problem. That is the Government's difficulty. They come into office with Cockcroft hard at work with his inquiry. In the meantime, certain action could be taken. There could


be more in-service training, there are opportunities which colleges can offer to teachers and special emphasis could be put on improving the quality of part-time mathematics teachers. The Government are beside themselves in their anxiety about the need for people to take up new skills so that industry can expand. Unless we solve what lies at the heart of the problem—the teaching of mathematics in primary and secondary schools—we shall not begin to overcome this major difficulty.

12.21 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) for raising this issue, particularly at this time when we have clear minds. I agree that the standard of mathematics is a major problem. My hon. Friend mentioned many reports. He could have added the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications report of 9 March last year. Dr. Kathleen 011erenshaw is the chairman of that distinguished institute. Chambers of commerce have also drawn attention to the difficulty in industry of recruiting because of the low mathematics standards.
The general teacher shortage has disappeared. For six or seven years there was a severe shortage, particularly in the major cities. Now we face specific shortages. The shortage of physics teachers is even more severe than the shortage of mathematics teachers.
My hon. Friend has ensured by his questions that we are aware of the shortages. In January this year there were 463 vacancies for mathematics teachers in secondary schools. I do not minimise the problem, but in September this year 301 qualified mathematics teachers were registered as unemployed. Perhaps if we could move the teachers round more, the shortages would be less severe. Of that 301, 44 were newly qualified.
My hon. Friend referred to teachers in secondary schools whose qualifications were not in mathematics. His figures are correct. A total of 16 per cent. of lessons in mathematics in secondary schools are conducted by teachers who are not qualified in that subject. A total of 29·5 per cent. of teachers who teach mathematics

at some time in the week have no qualifications.
Whether these teachers who were not qualified in mathematics were teaching either the able or the less able classes, it is a serious matter. My hon. Friend suggested that they may be teaching the least able, but even in that respect the requirement of at least a good mathematics teacher is something that we should consider.
The only subject that had a greater shortage of qualified teachers was physics. I trust that there are not too many hon. Members present who are qualified in physics. Physics entails the ability to manipulate mathematical formulas in many cases. We had a shortage of 32 per cent. in teachers teaching physics at secondary schools some time during the week who were qualified in physics, and 22 per cent. of lessons in physics in our secondary schools were taken by teachers not qualified in physics.
One could ask whether this matters. There is a climate of thought in this country on the part of people who believe that the fact that we have calculators and miniature electrical equipment will solve all our problems and that people do not need to learn the tables now or to be able to master the four rules. As a Government, we believe, as teachers who teach mathematics in schools also believe, that mathematics is at least as important as it always was. A machine can give one the correct answer only it one knows how to use that machine and if when the figure comes out one can estimate whether it is the correct figure. With many of these machines one can put in a decimal point which could be misplaced.
On this point, it is interesting that Her Majesty's inspectorate recently published a discussion document on teaching mathematics to children aged between 5 and 11 years of age. I shall come to primary schools shortly. The document said that a facility with mental arithmetic was as important as ever. One must be able to get the right figures into a calculating machine and to take them out. In the figures in a table to which I shall refer shortly, which came into my hands this afternoon, I felt on looking through them, without being the greatest mathematician on earth by any means, that certain of the figures were rather strange, so we had them checked similarly.
Whatever the machines that are being provided are, and whatever the calculators that children use, children still need mental arithmetic ability when they go into shops and when they measure and count. Also, even if they are using mechanical or electrical equipment, they need to know whether the figure they have got is likely to be right or whether they have done something the wrong way.
Ultimately, numeracy and literacy are the two basic needs of an educational system. One can only build brick on brick. One process cannot be undertaken without a relationship to another process. We are talking about numeracy, but those of us in the House who are also keen on literacy—both subjects seem tonight to be of greater concern on the Government Benches than on the Opposition Benches—will remember if they have read "Gulliver's Travels" that Laputa was the only place ever visited by Gulliver where houses were built from the roof down. That is a quite unusual process, I suggest—even at this hour of the morning. Gulliver was amazed at this because he did not think it was the usual process.
In mathematics, one does not start with a calculus and do it from the top down. One must start with the four rules and with the tables and the processes that go with them.
People ask why we have these problems. I have spent some time on the table to which I have referred. I must not neglect bringing it to public light tonight. In 1968–69, 22–15 per cent. of leavers from our schools obtained an O-level pass in mathematics. In 1977–78, 10 years later, including the years in which the school leaving age had been raised, when twice as many pupils were staying on and could sit the O-level examination because they were completing that year, only 24·74 per cent. passed at O-level in mathematics. Therefore over those 10 years, despite the raising of the school leaving age, and when more than half left at the age of 15, up to 1973, the only increase overall in O-level passes in mathematics was about 2·5 per cent. That is by no means an impressive figure.
My hon. Friend has done a great service by mentioning these figure. I was astonished at the poor A-level results. In

1968–69, only 3·59 per cent. of all school leavers obtained A-level in mathematics. Ten years later the figure was only 4·1 per cent., an increase of only 0·5 per cent. We must make a greater effort in that area if we are to become a technical society where engineering is important.
My hon. Friend refered to an article in The Daily Telegraph of 27 September about the two schools in Avon which were reported to have stopped teaching mathematics to first-year children. Several days later the Chief Education Officer of Avon put out a press notice saying:
The Director of Education, Avon, has identified the two secondary schools which were the subject of a claim that first year pupils were not being taught mathematics this term. In both schools there is a full complement of mathematics teachers and all mathematics teaching is proceeding normally.
It is good to be able to give that bulletin on the progress of the patient.
The courses at Cranfield are most interesting. I shall be visiting there in two or three weeks' time. Knowing my hon. Friend's interest in mathematics teaching, if he has not visited Cranfield I shall be pleased if he comes along.
We are in that position, first, because of the shortage of mathematics teachers in schools. It is a vicious circle. If a subject is not well taught, pupils will opt for another subject. I took my O-levels in a Lancashire grammar school in 1941 and had to decide whether to become a physicist or a historian. I chose history because my physics master was called into the Royal Marines for war service. He was replaced by a master whose teaching I did not believe would enable me to get even an O-level after two years in the sixth form.
Two years ago, in 1977, only 2 per cent. of university students graduating in mathematics went into school teaching. That figure is astonishingly low. Of those in post-graduate work, only 7·9 per cent. went into school teaching.
The movement towards comprehensive schools, while not increasing the shortage, has made us more aware of it. There are more sixth-formers and we require more good mathematics specialists.
Some people favour modern mathematics, but one result has been to confuse


mathematics teaching in schools, particularly with the mobility of teachers. Children may be taught traditional mathematics and then have to switch to modern mathematics. Whichever system is taught, it should be taught throughout the school.
We do not have figures for primary school teachers with O- and A-level mathematics. It is, however, important that general primary school teachers teaching arithmetic have some training in mathematics and are not trained merely in English, the arts or music.
I should like to mention the future, which I am sure is what my hon. Friend would like me to concentrate on. We are getting more mathematics applicants now for training as teachers. That is the good news. I shall give the figures in a moment. Secondly, from 1984 onwards, any teacher who qualifies will have to have O-level mathematics and O-level English. Of course, some students are undergoing four-year courses and others three-year courses.
My hon. Friend asked whether they could do this while they were on their course. It was the view of the previous Administration that this would not be possible. In this case I tend to share that view, because students on such courses are already pretty heavily loaded. If they were not able to pass O-level mathematics at school, when they were studying the subject regularly every day, they would need so much tuition that it would interfere with the rest of their course. If someone really wanted to train for teaching, and knew that he had to have O-level mathematics, which I believe he should, he should at present be attending a night school or a crash course. If he cannot get O-level mathematics in those circumstances, it is very unlikely that he will do so while undergoing a three- or four-year course.
The inspectorate is encouraging more mathematics applications for courses, and the number of candidates is increasing. In 1974, 804 applicants for the postgraduate certificate of education applied for mathematics. Last year, 727 joined. That may seem a decline of 80, but since fewer teachers were being trained the proportion of those going into mathematics was much higher than 10 years ago. However, the increase in colleges of education is proportionately unsatisfactory.

In 1974, 1,740 trained, and in 1977 the number was 646. The planned overall increase is from 7·1 per cent. to 9·4 per cent. for 1981–82, but we need a much higher figure than that.
In the remaining two minutes I shall hurry through the other factors that were raised by my hon. Friend. The Cockcroft committee will report in 1980. My hon. Friend referred to the material on employment in early life. It is rather late in the day now, but we have that material for my hon. Friend. I can also tell him that 14 mathematics retraining courses have gone through and 380 people have successfully completed them. At present, 123 teachers trained in other subjects are being retrained in mathematics. Therefore, every attempt is being made. My hon. Friend, who for so long was involved in employment as deputy-chairman of our Conservative committee, will be aware that the Manpower Services Commission has extended in-service training in mathematics for primary and secondary schools. That has been of particular help.
The astonishing thing to me—I am sure it will also astonish my hon. Friend—is that while we are short of mathematics teachers, one-third of secondary school teachers qualified in mathematics are not teaching that subject. If the mathematicians who are qualified taught that subject, there would be no shortage. Whether or not the Cockcroft committee is looking into this, we shall certainly investigate why one-third of all qualified teachers in secondary schools are not teaching mathematics. If my hon. Friend and I concentrate our minds on that, we may find a solution or at least discover something that we do not already know.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter tonight. It has enabled us to concentrate attention upon it. I know that the education press will follow what has been said. As a Government we shall give all the help that we can to ensure that mathematics is properly taught in schools and that we have adequate teachers so to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.